or 


U.^4 


5ec    ^/a,/^^ 


/  3  0 


«;^1 


-^. 


OLD  TESTAMENT 


(^hi\or\  ki\(i  rl\ilology. 


A  SYLLABUS 


OF 


Prof.  Wm.  Henry  Green's  Lectures, 


PRINTED — NOT  PUBLISHED — EXCLUSIVELY    FOR    THE 
USE  OF  THE  STUDENTS  OF  THE 


JUNIOR  CLASS  IN  PRINCETON  SEMINARY. 


[prepared  by  the  class  of  '8o.] 


PRINCE  TON: 

PRESS      PRINTING      ESTABLISHMENT, 
1878. 


PREFATORY   REMARKS. 


It  is  hoped  that  all  due  allowance  will  be  made  for  the  various 
inaccuracies  and  defects  in  these  notes.  They  are  taken  from  the  notes 
of  a  student  of  the  Seminary  who  was  here  several  years  ago,  and  have 
been  corrected  or  improved  as  they  seemed  to  require.  The  abbrevia- 
tions and  the  conciseness  of  statement  are  such  as  are  usual  in  taking 
notes,  and  the  labor  of  correcting  proofs  has  been  performed  at  odd 
moments  in  the  midst  of  more  essential  duties.  The  Syllabus  is  offered 
to  the  Class  under  the  conviction  that  they  will  not  find  in  them  a  help  to 
negligence  of  duty,  but  an  assistance  to  reaching  h  higher  and  more  effi- 
cient standard  of  scholarship. 

S.  R.  H. 


L.c-VA^^      j;_     /?  cc^e-^-''^ '-'  ' '      ^^>-^^Y.jL.cL, 


\ 


Introduction  to  Old  Testament. 


LECTURE  I. 


O.  T.  consists  of  a  number  of  separate  books  or 
treatises  by  different  authors  over  a  long  period  of  time. 
Hence  the  necessity  for  studying  the  canon.  Canon,  xavcbv, 
any  straight  rod;  then  one  used  in  measuring,  as  a  car- 
penter's rule;  then  any  rule  to  fix,  regulate  and  deter- 
mine other  things.  We  speak  of  canons  of  Rhetoric, 
of  Grammar.  "  Canons  "=Standard  authors.  Also 
"that  which  fixes  anything" — hence  the  Alexandrian 
Gram'marians  applied  the  word  to  the  classics — thus  in 
Gal.  6:  16;  "according  to  this  rule,"  r<t/  xavovc — So  in 
2  Cor.  10:  13.  In  the  Fathers  we  find  the  words,  canon 
of  the  church,  canon  of  faith,  and  of  the  truth,  &c., — the 
body  of  Christian  doctrine — this  last  expression  was  first 
found  in  Irenseus.  As  applied  to  Scriptures — inspired  rule 
of  faith  and  practice.  This  the  modern  use.  The  Old 
Testament  canon  consists  of  those  books  containing  the 
rule  of  faith  and  practice  given  by  God  prior  to  the  coming 
of  Christ ;  not  merely  the  list  of  books — this  is  a  secon- 
dary and  derivative  sense. 

Two  things  necessary  to  make  a  book  canonical — 1. 
Its  authorship ;  hy  inspired  men.  2.  Its  design;  given  to 
church  as  part  of  her  permanent  rule  of  faith. 

The  first  is  not  all,  all  writings  by  inspired  men  are 
not  canonical — See  1  Kings  4  :  32.  "  Songs  by  Solomon" 
1005;  all  lost;  he  also  spake  much  on  Natural  History, 
&c.  It  does  not  follow  that  all  his  utterances  were 
inspired,  nor  that  every  inspired  prediction  was  intended 
to  form  part  of  the  canon.  So  also  as  to  the  writings  of 
Nathan,  Ahija.  Much  that  the  prophets  spoke  was 
intended  only  for  the  existing  generation  and  has  not 
been  kept;  was  intended  only  for  a  particular  age  or 
nation. 


The  historical  books  on  which  the  books  of  Chroni- 
cles are  founded  are  not  in  existence  and  never  were  in  the 
canon.  Decrees  of  Councils  have  value  as  being  the 
concurrent  testimony  of  many  from  a  great  region,  thus 
giving  precision,  &c. 

But  no  book  ever  in  the  canon  has  been  lost. 

The  church  has  no  authority  to  decide  what  should  he 
in  the  canon — it  is  merely  the  custodian  and  witness,  to 
keep  and  testify  to  it.  Romanists  hold  the  former  doctrine. 
Romanists  say  the  authority  of  Scripture  is  based  on 
the  authority  of  the  church,  as  we  have  to  2^0  to  the  church 
of  old  to  find  out  the  canon.  But  the  church  has  no 
existence  without  the  Scriptures. 

Two  ways  to  study  it. 

(1)  Historically. 

(2)  Theologically,  to  determine  if  correct  on  theologi- 
cal grounds. 

Our  inquiry  is  purely  historical.  What  books  have 
been  given  to,  and  from  the  beginning  received  by,  the 
church  as  the  canon  ? 

Greater  difficulties  in  Old  Test.  1.  Great  antiquity,  and 
absence  of  contemporaneous  testimony.  In  K,  T.  each 
book  is  distinctly  marked  as  to  authorship — can  be  refer- 
red clearly  to  an  inspired  author.  But  in  O.  T.  many 
books  cannot  be  traced  to  their  authors.  2.  Entire 
Christian  world  is  agreed  about  K.  T.  canon  :  not  so  with 
the  O.  T.  canon.     Romanists. 

Advantages  for  O.  T.  canon.  N.  Test,  has  borne 
inspired  witness  to  the  other. 

Inquire  into  1.  the  history  of  the  formation  into  one 
volume,  and  2.  the  Extent  of  O.  T.  canon,  to  identify  the 
books  which  have  been  and  ought  to  be  in  it.  This  second 
inquiry  has  three  distinct  though  intimatel}^  related  divis- 
ions; (1)  the  canon  among  the  Jews,  (2)  the  canon  as 
recognized  by  Christ  and  his  disciples,  and  (3)  that 
recognized  by  the  Christian  church. 

(1.)  Presumptive  argument,  a  priori.  We  may  natu- 
rally expect  that  God  would  guard  His  revelation  :  that  the 
people  would  do  so  ;  that  if  God  would  reveal  His  will  for 
the  permanent  instruction  of  his  people.  He  would  take 


measures  to  preserve  and  safel}'  transmit  it:  and  also 
that  the  people  to  whom  He  communicated  it  would 
jealously  guard  it. 

(2.)  Argument  from  analogy,  from  heathen  antiquity. 
The  Romans  had  their  Sibylline  books,  the  Egyptians 
theirs,  deposited  with  priests;  the  Babylonians,  Pheni- 
cians,  Greeks  had  sacred  books  and  guarded  them  so. 

(3.)  Historical  argument.  But  we  are  explicitly 
informed  that  such  was  the  case  with  the  Hebrews — 
Moses  immediately  after  he  had  copied  it,  (for  the  last 
chapter  of  Deut.,  giving  account  of  Moses'  death,  &c., 
must  of  course  have  been  added  by  Joshua.  He  added 
also  a  description  of  the  land — Josh.  24:  26,)  commanded 
theLevitestoput  the  book  of  the  lawin_th^sid,e  of  the  ark 
to  be  there  for  a  witiiess — Deut.  31  :  24-26  ;  and  that  it 
should  be  read  by  the  priests  before  all  the  people  every 
seven  years  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles — Deut.  31:  9-13; 
the  future  king  was  required  to  transcribe  the  law — Deut. 
17:  18.  Joshua  was  required  to  have  a  copy  and  medi- 
tate upon  it  Josh.  1  :  f^^contains  divine  constitution  and 
laws — the  title-deed  to  Canaan,  Josh.  24  :  26.  So  other 
originals  were  guarded.  See  also  1  Sam.  10  :  25  ;  if  even 
merely  national  papers  were  laid  before  the  Lord,  surely 
care  was  taken  of  His  word.  See  also  1  Chron.  25  :  7. 
Man}^  of  the  Psalms  of  David  were  committed  to  the  chief 
musician,  a  priest  in  the  house  of  the  Lord  ;  "  those 
trained  in  songs  of  the  Lord  were  288" — 1  Chron.  25:  7. 
Hence  such  writings  were  preserved. 

'No  doubt  when  the  temple  was  built,  the  original  copy 
of  the  law  was  transferred  to  it.  ^ot  disproved  by  1  Kings 
8:  9,  or  by  2  Chron.  5:  10.  Li  both  these  passages  it 
says  that  nothing  was  in  the  ark  except  the  tvvo  tables  of 
stone. 

This  objection  is  stated  by  some  of  the  early  Fathers 
and  the  later  Rabbins.  They  were  doubtless  conversant 
with  the  more  modern  Jewish  custom  of  putting  a  copy 
of  the  law  in  the  ark  which  they  have  in  the  synagogue. 
It  was  not  put  in  the  ark  ever,  but  "alongside"  or  in 
the  side  of  it.  2  Kings  22 :  8,  shows  that  the  law  was 
treasured  up  somewhere  in  the  temple  until  Josiah's  reign 
at   least   33  years  before  the  exile.     When  the  temple 


6 

was  burned,  it  did  not  involve  the  loss  of  the  law,  even  if 
we  disbelieve  the  tradition  that  Jeremiah  hid  it,  for  it 
was  still  in  the  minds  of  the  people  ;  and  was  read  to 
them,  Xeh.  8  :  1.  Each  kino:  was  required  to  have  a 
copy,  2  Kings  11:  12.  When  Joash  was  crowned,  Ty? 
Jehoiada,  high-priest,  gave  him  "  the  testimony."  x  /^  .,^w— 

There  is  a  presumption  that  the  rest  of  Scripture 
was  preserved;  if  the  people  preserved  the  law  of  God, 
they  would  naturally  preserve  also  what  God  spake 
through  the  prophets.  And  the  people  must  have  had 
many  copies.  S^^nagogues  perhaps  formed  at  captivity  or 
later,  but  meetings  were  certainly  held  to  read  the  law,Isa. 
8  :  16.  '*  Bind  up  the  testimony  ;  seal  the  law  among 
my  disciples." 

Isa.  8:  20 — "To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony:" 
1  Psalm. 

These  considerations  prove  the  preservation  of  the 
laio  of  Moses  at  least.  The  incorporation  of  the  other 
inspired  books  is  proved  by  independent  hints  only. 
We  have  evidence  of  this  in  the  frequent  allusions  by 
succeeding  prophets  to  their  predecessors  in  recognition 
of  their  authorship  and  canonicit3^  The  Proverbs  not  all 
written  at  one  time  and  in  their  present  form,  but  Prov. 
2$T  1,  must  mean  inspired  men  in  reign  of  Hezekiah 
completed  them  b}'  making  selections  from  extant  writ- 
ings of  Solomon.  "  I,  Daniel,  understood  by  the  books, 
&c."  Dan.  9:  %  Isa.  3^:/6  "Seek  ye  out  the  book  of  the 
ior(i  and  read."  Tpie  "Books" — a  definite  and  well- 
known  collection,  complete  including  Jeremiah  his  con- 
temporary, Zech.  1  :  4  ;  7  :  12.  "  Lest  they  should  hear 
the  law,  and  the  words  which  the  Lord  of  hosts  hath 
sent  in  His  Spirit  by  the  former  prophets."  After  the 
exile,  the  law  and  the  prophets  are  classed  together  as  of 
like  authorit}'.  Soon  after  the  exile  about  400  B.  C. 
prophets  and  canon  ceased  with  Malachi.  I^ext  proof, 
over  200  years  later,  130  B.  C.  in  prologue  to  the  apocry- 
phal book  of  Syrach  or  Ecclesiasticus — speaks  of  0.  T. 
books  as  if  collected  and  arranged  in  three  divisions — 
when  and  by  whom  not  stated  by  the  author,  but  some 
time  before  even  his  grandfather's  day,  "  studying  the 
law  and  the  prophets  and  the  rest  of  the  books." 


/f 


Josepbus,  priest,  born  A.  J).  37,  says  "  tbere  continued 
to  be  additions  to  0.  T.  till  Artaxerxes  of  Persia  (Estber), 
and  tben  the  exact  succession  of  propbets  ceased — and 
bence  tbougb  books  were  still  written,  tbey  were  not  of 
like  autbority,  and  none  were  so  bold  as  to  add  to  or  take 
from  '  tbe  canon.'  " 

After  tbis  only  legends  and  conjectures  till  time  of 
Cyril — in  relation  to  tbe  process  by  wbich  and  tbe  time 
wben  and  by  wboin  collecte(L  (The  time  when  and  by 
whom  tbey  were  collected  in  one  volume  does  not  affect 
their  authority'  :  they  have  as  much  when  separate.)  It 
is  supposed  Ezra  put  them  in  their  present  form.  Evi- 
dence of  this.  1.  Legends  aid.  2.  Esdras — close  1st 
century,  A.D.,  in  chap.  14:  21,  says  the  law  was  burned 
when  the  temple  was,  but  Ezra  by  divine  inspiration 
restored  it,  and  in  40  days  dictated  94  books,  [ethiopic 
version  (best)  says — 94  books,  vulgate  204] — of  which 
24  to  be  written  and  for  general  circulation  (the  canon), 
and  tbe  rest  oral,  70,  only  for  tbe  wise. 

Same  legend  in  early  Christian  fathers,  Clemens 
Alexandrinus,  Iren^us,  Tertullian.  Tbey  merely  say 
Scriptures  were  los^and  Ezra  enabled  to  restore  them 
without  the  loss  of  a  single  w;ord  or  letter.  But  no 
credence  should  be  given  tbis,  except  so  far  as  that  Ezra 
did  take  a  prominent  part  in  collecting  and  editing  the 
books  after  tbe  exile.  A  tradition  arose  through  Elias 
Leviter,  a  Rabbi  of  great  eminence,  about  the  time  of 
tbe  reformation,  that  Ezra  and  the  Great  Synagogue  of 
120  men  collected  the  canon,  l^o  foundation  for  this 
except  an  obscure  passage  in  tbe  Talmud.  2nd  Book  of 
Maccabees  says  Kebemiah  gathered  tbe  Acts  of  the  Kings 
and  prophets, — i.eT,  historical  and  prophetic  books;  the 
writings  of  David, — i.  e.,  Psalms ;  and  the  Epistles  of  the 
kings  concerning  holy  gifts  [-^letters  of  kings  of  Persia 
(decrees)  which  are  preserved  in  Ezra,]  and  tries  to  say 
wben  and  by  whom  different  books  were  introduced 
into  tbe  canon,  and  tben  says  Great  Synagogue  introduced 
books  written  outside  of  Palestine,  viz.,  Ezekiel,  Daniel 
and  tbe  12  Minor  Propbets — not  clear.  Great  Synagogue 
=  a  body  of  men  associated  with  Uzra  and  Nehemiah  in 
over-sight  of  tbe  spiritual  affairs  of  the  nation. 


8 

If  any  weight  is  to  be  given  to  the  traditions  it  is  only 
that  Ezra  and  ISTeheniiah  and  perhaps  others  finally  gath- 
ered thera  into  one  volume,  and  perhaps  aided  in  multi- 
plyins:  and  circulating  them.  This  is  probable  from  the 
following  independent  considerations,  derived  from  the 
Scriptures  themselves. 

I.  Ezra  was  a  '' sm6e,"  "  a  ready  scribe  in  the  law  of 
Moses" — "  a  scribe  of  the  law  of  the  God  of  heaven,"  &c. 
Known  so  before  he  went  up  from  the  Captivity.  Hew^as 
the  first  of  that  long  list  of  scribes  so  prominent  in  after 
times,  as  custodians  and  servitors  of  the  sacred  text. — 
Kehemiah  8  :  4—12 :  26  and  36— Ezra,  7  :  6,  11,  12. 

II.  The  period  succeeding  the  exile  was  one  in  which 
there  was  great  necessity  and  zeal  for  gathering  and  treas- 
uring all  the  sacred  relics,  institutions,  &c.  Ezra  engaged 
in  restoring  temple  services,  &c. 

III.  Order  of  prophets  ceased  with  Malachi,  who  was 
contemporary  with  iS^'ehemiah  and  Ezra:  naturally  gave 
rise  to  desire  to  collect  the  books. 

IV.  The  succeeding  period  was  conscious  that  proph- 
ecy had  ceased.  I.  Maccabees,  4  :  46  ;  14  :  4  ;  speaks  of 
perplexity  from  want  of  a  prophet — and  decision  of  difii- 
cult  questions,  if  a  prophet  should  arise. 

Y.  Statement  of  Josephus,  no  '•  additions,  and  no 
change"  from  time  of  Artaxerxes,  .-.  not  only  written  but 
collected  by  that  time. 

VI.  II.'^Maccabees,  2  :  14,  says  of  Judas  Maccabeus: 
that  he  was  ''  restoring  the  things  lost  during  persecu- 
tion :  "  means  this  probably — war  with  Antiochus  Epi- 
phanes,  in  his  eflTorts  to  destroy  the  Jewish  nation  and 
religion.  "  i^egathered  all  books  lost  by  reason  of  the 
war  and  they  remain  with  us  :"  this  implies  a  previous 
gathering. 

Recommend — Alexander  on  Canon  (see  evidences) — 
Canon  Wordsw^orth,  on  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures. 
Bishoi?  Cosin's  Scholastical  History  of  the  canon.  ^  Apoc- 
rypha. Dr.  Thornwell :  arguments  of  Romanists  discussed 
and  refuted.  Smith's  Dictionary  :  Kitto  on  the  canon. 
Also  Canon  Westcott  on  the  Bible  in   the  church. 

The  conclusion  of  all  this  is  that  the  foundation  of  the 
Jewish  canon  was  laid  by  Moses  himself;  that  Joshua 


f^'i,,^^*^^   ^^CuL^^      oc^^-< 


ii4. 


t^-LiS'  y  ir- 


aCh^AjLA^    lr^\ 


9 


was  added,  and  perhaps  others  as  written  ;  that  the  books 
were  gathered  by^Keheniiah  and  Ezra  shortly  after  the 
return  from  exile  ;  and  the  last  book,  written  in  the  time 
of  Kehemiah,  was  immediately  added. 


LECTURE  11. 

I.  Extent  of  the  Jewish  Canon. 

Of  what  books  precisely  :  determine  and  identify  the 
books. 

Jews  are  now  all  agreed,  and  the  unanimity  exists  as 
far  back  as  we  can  trace. 
Q£^v  l^^tc^- Talmud,  at  least  before  5th  century — gives  a  catalogue 

of  them  in  three  classes — Caw,  Prophets  and  Kethuvim,  >  - 
otherwise  called  Hagiographa,  Aycoypacprj — sacred  writings 
(Kathabh  to  write).  Just  the  books  we  find  in  our  Bibles 
are  given  here — 24  books,  according  to  the  number  of 
Greek  letters,  Samuel,  Chronicles  and  Kings  being  each 
one  book,  the  "  twelve  minor  prophets"  one,  and  "  Nehe- 
miah  and  Ezra"  being  in  one. 

Josephus — Born  a"  D.  37— -priest,  lived  in  Jerusalem, 
a  Pharisee.  Had  therefore  a  good  opportunity  of  know- 
ing :  in  discussion  against  Appian  only  gives  their  num- 
ber, not  their  names,  and  describes  them. 

He  gives  only  22  books,  the  number  of  Hebrew  let- 
ters, att'achina:  Ruth  to  Judges,  and  Lamentations  to 
Jeremiah.     This  frequently  done.     Three  classes.     ^^^^-^I-.-, 

I.  5  Books  by  Moses.  ,  ^         *^    ^vs 

n.  13     "     by  Prophets.  ^.lut^fl^  w.^»^i-Tl  a>^t>^^>^^- 

in.  4  "  of  Hymns  to  God  and  precepts  for  the 
conduct  of  human  life. 

L  Same  as  usual. 

III.   Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Sorig  of  Solomon. 

IL  Historical  and  Prophetical  Books-Joshua,  Judges 
and  Ruth,  Samuel,  Kings,  Chronicles,  Ezra^'N'ehemiah, 
Esther,  Job,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah  and  Lamentations,  Ezekiel, 
Daniel,  Minor  Prophets. 

Can  prove  it  also  from  his  own  works.  Job  and  the  three  -/,,     , 
books  of  Solomon  only  are  not  quoted,  as  not  relating  to  ^^ 


(Af^ 


10 


the  liue  of  his  history:  but  these  are  needed  to  make  up 
his  number,  22.  Josephus  nowhere  quotes  or  makes 
use  of  any  one  of  the  apocryphal  books. 

We  might  prove  it  also  by  early  Christian  fathers. 
Find  it  later  in  account  of  canon  as  received  in  Christian 
church.  ^ 

General  argument.  The  canon  could  not  have  been 
corrupted  before  close  of  0  T.,  for  a  succession  of  in- 
spired men,  the  prophets,  would  most  certainly  have 
exposed  it.  Since  then  the  extreme  reverence  in  which 
it  has  been  held  by  the  Jews  would  not  permit  it;  not 
to  speak  of  the  fact  that  an  authentic  copy  was  kept  in 
the  temple  after  the  exile  also.  Josephus  says — "  How 
firml}^  we  give  credit  to  these  books  is  evidenced  by  what 
we  do,  for  we  willingly  suffer  and  die  for  them,  and  none 
are  so  bold  as  to  add  or  take  therefrom." 

As  to  its  safe  handing  down,  even  the  Romanists 
admit  it.  .  But  does  it  constitute  allf  Romanists  say 
there  are  "  tioo  canons — one  restricted,  the  other  enlarged, 
Protocanonical  and  Deuterocanonical,  of  like  authority." 

Of  the  latter  7  are  entire  and  there  are  parts  of  two 
others — Tobit,  Judith,  Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus  or  Cyrach, 
M  p^  Barak,  1st  and  2nd  Maccabees  :  with  chapters  added  to 
;  W-Esther  and  Daniel.  "  First  canon  earlier,  2nd  later — no 
'•'■y  difference  in  authority  and  inspiration."  Some  distin- 
guished Romanists  say  they  "  differ  in  grade  of  authority, 
though  both  inspired."  But  this  is  absurd — gives  up  the 
point :  and  they  mean  it. 

In  favour  of  2nd  canon  the}^  say  that  the  canon  being 
closed  at  the  time  of  Malachi,  all  inspired  books  of  a 
later  date  have  to  be  put  in  a  second  canon. 

Skeptical  writers.  They  say  the  limitation  of  1st 
canon  was  simply  a  matter  of  time  :  and  was  only  a  col- 
lection of  all  earl}^  Jewish  writers.     But 

1.  This  ignores  the  character  claimed  and  accorded 
to  them  from  the  beginning.  All  Jewish  authors,  Barak, 
Jose[)hus,  Philo,  !N".  T.  writers  say  they  were  from  God. 

2.  The  O.  T.  did  not  in  fact  contain  all  the  extant 
writings.  Chronicles,  one  of  the  latest  O.  T.  books,  men- 
tions several  histories  and  works  as  extant,  viz.,  I^athan, 
Gad,  Ahija,  Iddo,  &c.     They  are  not  now  known  in  the 


Jfuu^    n.^^^^L^   -^y-a/'. 


(J 


f" 


f^rr^^ 

a^AjL   ^^i^^ 

1 
■J-  ^ '  I 

CP  UZzy^ 

N-c. 


3  ^<^  C^^A^'- 


-i^ 


;^uj)ju^^ 


&^    V-    >L.  LSjicX-A^ 


C^-^u^-' 


V     _  / 


■^^^     /-tMU-<^^^-^^^      y6x^-n^ 


•/. 


/ 


11 

canon  because  not  in  the  canon  then  and  not  J ealousb/  guarded 

since  ;  and  not  because  they  had  perished  at  the  time  the  / 

canon  was  made  up.  -^  ' " 

The  apocryphal  books  are  refused,  not  because  after  a 
certain  date,  but  because  not  inspired.  Joseph  us  says 
after  Artaxerxes,  prophets  ceased. 

Some  say  Jewish  canon  was  "  limited  by  the  language 
in  which  written,  and  Apocryphal  books  not  admitted 
i)ecause  written  in  Greek.''  But  apocryphal  books  were 
originally  in  Hebrew.  See  Jerome,  Maccabees,  Tobit  and 
Cyrach. 

Some  say  there  were  two  separate  canons  among  the 
Jews — that,  though  only  one  at  Palestine,  the  Jews  else- 
where, as  the  Alexandrian  Jews,  bad  two. 

No  authority  for  this  statement.  The  Samaritans,  a 
scbismatical  body,  not  belonging  to  the  Jews,  it  is  true, 
acknowledged  only  the  books  of  Moses,  but  this  was  be- 
cause the  later  books  conflicted  with  their  cherished 
views,  and  not  because  the  Jews  in  general  attached 
superior  authority  to  the  books.  They  had  their  temple 
at  Mount  Gerizim,  and  therefore  refused  to  accept  books 
w^hich  recommended  Zion  and  Jerusalem,  Also  had 
much  intercourse  with  the  heathen  around  them. 

Some  say  the  Sadducees  acknowledged  only  Moses. 
Mistake.  Josephus  says  22  books  were  accepted  by  the 
nation  at  large,  and  if  so  large  and  powerful  a  portion  of 
the  nation  as  the  Sadducees  had  not  received  all,  he 
would  have  certainly  mentioned  it.  Had  this  been  so, 
Christ  (Math.  22)  would  rather  have  rebuked  them  for 
it,  than 'Eave~gi ven  way  to  it :  his  design  in  using  it  was 
that  a  reference  to  Exodus  might  show  them  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection  pervaded  the  entire  Scrip- 
tures. 

Mystics,  Therapeutoe,  Essenes,  &c.,  accepted  the  canon 
and  merely  added  their  own  views  thereto. 

"YhQjeiDSofAlexandriadidliiive  lax  views  of  inspiration, 
but  even  if  they  had  had  two  canons,  their  position 
among  the  Gentiles  would  make  us  distrust  any  novelty 
from  such  a  quarter. 

1.  These  Jews  also  were  extremely  desirous  of  keep- 
■  ing  up  intercourse  with  Jews  of  Palestine,  and  nothing 


12 

would  so  effectually  prevent  this  as  introducing  two 
canons. 

2.  Translator  of  Cyrach  speaks  of  the  book  which  his 
grandfather  used  in  Palestine,  and  which  he  himself  used 
in  Egypt,  and  makes  no  distinction  between  them. 

3.  Josephus  in  his  treatise  againts  Appian,  an  eminent 
Jew  of  Alexandria^  speaks  of  no  difference. 

<//  A,  ^'  4.  Philo  makes  repeated  incidental  reference  to  O.  T. 
books,  all  same  as  those  given  in  Talmud,  as  inspired  : 
no  mention  of  Apocryphal  books. 
Defense  of  Apocryphal  books. 
^  I.  "  The  Apocryphal  hooks,  are  in  the  Septuagint."     Ad 

''     '^'  '  p*^"'  '  ignoraiiUam.     (1.)  But  origin  and  even  design  of  Septua- 
fC -^    ^^   :    gint  is  obscure  :  perhaps  merely  literary:   .*.  collect  all 
for  the  Library.     Tradition,  that  Tt^  was    translated  by 
/  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  for  his  library.     (2.)  i^ot  all  pre- 

pared at  one  time,  or  by  one  body  of  translators.  Inter- 
nal evidence.  Varied  merit  and  ability  of  translation. 
(3.)  Apocryphal  books  were  probably  attached  as  appen- 
dix, as  relating  to  the  same  subject,  and  not  to  anything 
in  profane  history.  • 

11.  "  Accepted  by  Fathers." — Consider  this  objection 
later. 

Ill  'tJerome's  expression  that  '  Tobit  and  Judith 
rankedV^niong  the  'Hagiographa'— and  since  this  was 
not  so  at  Palestine,  must  have  been  so  at  Alexandria.'' 
But  the  word  Hagiographa  must  be  here  a  corruption  for 
Apocrypha,  for  Jerome  elsewhere  expressly  denies  that 
these  books  were  in  the  Hagiographa., 

^''  LECTURE  in. 

The  Christian  canon  brings  the  most  decisive  argu- 
ment, although  the  foregoing  is  conclusive. 
1  11.    The    books    recognized    by    the    Lord    and    the 

apostles. 

They  recognized  the  same  as  the  Jews.  They  never 
charged  the  Jews  with  altering  the  letter  of  the  law. 
Proved,  Negatively.     They  never  charge   the  Jews 'with 


f^i<^j 


13 

corrupting  or  mittilatmg  the  word  of  God,  thouorh  our  Lord 
■  says  they  made  it  void  by  their  traditions  and  gave  erro- 
neous interpretations  of  it.     He  would  have  reproved  any 
omission  or  insertion. 

^      Proved,  Positively,     1.  Bji_express^tatements.     "  Unto 
■'■'^them  were  committed  the  oracles  of  God,"  Rom.  3:2.- 

2.  By  general  imjAimtion.  Appeal  to  the  sacred  writ- 
in2:s  of  the  Jews  as  a  avhole  as  "  Scriptures,"  &c.  John 
5  ^39  ;  Matt.  22  :  29  ;  John  10  :  35.  Or  to  the  three-ioVl 
division.  Matt.  5:  17;  Luke  2(A"''tlye^"  Law,  Prophets  and 
'  .1^  Psalms,"  the  latter  for  Hagiographa,  part  for  the  whole, 
or  because  of  the  prevailingly  poetical  character  of  the^ 
Hagiographa,  because  the  ^Psalms  especially  testify  of 
Christ. 

3.  By  their  abundant  ciYa/!^ms  of  it  as  the  word 
of  God — of  the  Holy  Ghost— of  inspired  men.  All  the 
books  are  thus  quoted  except  some  minor  prophets  and 
it  is  hard  to  tell  which  definitely.  Ezra,N'ehemiah,Eccle- 
siastes,  Esther,  admitted  not  to  be  quoted. 

Everv  such  citation  lends  the  sanction  of  insipation 
to  the  canonicity  of  the  book  thus  quoted,  and  to  the  en- 
tire volume  in  which  this  book  is  found.  Those  not  cited 
are  so  merely  because  there  was  no  occasion  for  it.  They 
do  not  profess  to  quote  all:  it  is  merely  incidental, 
for  the  moment. 

They  take  O.  T.  as  found  among  the  Jews  and  ascribe 
I  to  it  divine  authority  :  a  most  decisive  proof  that  it  con- 
^  ^  tained  nothins;  more  nor  less  than  what  it  should. 

Objection—"  K  T.  writers  used  the  Septuagint  ver- 
sion and  therefore  sanctioned  all  the  books  which  it  con- 
tained, including  the  Apocrypha." 

Answer— 1. "They  admittedly  dici  not  sanction  its 
inaccuracies:  no  more  did  they  sanction  its  spurious  addi- 
tions. 2.  And  there  was  no  danger  of  their  being  mis- 
understood by  the  Jews  around—.-,  did  not  expressly 
SAY  thev  accepted  only  the  genuine.  3.  They  never  even 
quote  from  the  Ajwcrypha—'m  regard  to  every  passage 
said  to  be  so  quoted  it  can  be  proved  (a)  that  there  is  no 
such  resemblance,  or  (b)  that  the  passage  in  the  Apocry- 
pha is  itself  conformed  to  an  O.  T.  passage,  and  this  is 
what  is  in   reality  quoted— or '(c)   even   if  so  quoted  it 


14 

merely  aiFords  the  historical  proof  of  the  quotation 
merely;  the  apostles  quoted  even  from  heathen  poets, 
and  yet  thej-  did  not  sanction  them,  (d)  They  make 
positive  statements  which  exclude  these  books,  (e) 
Even  prominent  Romanists  themselves  have  felt  that 
the  apostles  did  not  sanction  these  passages. 
.  .  Last  resort   of  Romanists.     The   O.    T.    canon   thus 

sanctioned  is  the  true  one:       Even  Bellarmin  (a  Romish 
authority),  acknowledges  that  none  other  are   canonical. 
Hence,  we  come  to — 
'    III.  Canon  recognized  by  the  Christian  church. 

Last  argument  for  Apocrypha — "  These  books  must 
be  canonical  because  sanctioned  by  the  early  church." 

Even  if  this  were  true,  the  church  might  have  erred 
in  this  :  it  erred  in  doctrinal  matters  (though  here  we 
reject  the  development  theory,  that  the  canon  grew  with 
the  church). 

Meaning  of  some  terms  used. 

Canonical  books=books  inspired  of  God,  given  to 
the  church  as  her  rule  of  faith. 

Canonical  hooks,  loose  sense, =books  agreeing  in  gen- 
eral character  with  inspired  books,  orthodox  books. 

Apocri/pha — dnoxfjur.rco  —  "Hidden."  1.  Some  say 
this  refers  to  the  obscurity  which  clouded  their  origin, 
li-o-t^T  Augustine,  (quid  origo  non  pariut)  as  regards  their  being 
ec'^^'  .  -.  iyispired.  Yet  Samuel,  Kings,  &c.,  have  not  known  au- 
thors. But  Ecclesiasticus  is  known  as  written  by  Son  of 
Cyrach.  2.  ^he  contents  of  the  books,  mysterious,  as  the 
Eleusinian  mj^steries :  not  allowed  circulation,  as  the 
heathen  books  (called  xo!.»-r«)  which  are  intelligible  only  to 
the  initiated.  Hence==^heathenish  i.  e.  heretical  esoteric 
writings.  3.  In  contrast  with  the  Scriptures,  which  were 
read  in  public  worship — which  hence  =  "  open"  books,  the 
others  "  hidden  "=Heb.  g'nuvim — (But  the  Jews  applied 
this  w^ord  to  obscure  passages  in  the  canon  itself  and  to 
copies  of  the  Scriptures  too  full  of  mistakes  to  be  used 
in  the  Synagogue.) 

Apocrypha,  used  by  the  Fathers  in  two  senses  1.  As 
we  use  the  word,  =  books  claiming  inspiration  and  place 
in  canon  but  which  have  it  not.  2.  Books  of  pernicious 
character  or  forged  to   sustain  heresies.     According  to 


ft  a 


(Ajl.     <?  o_  u. 


-%^'i 


•0^- 


S. 


ti     o.-- 


j^Vo  •:;■'"<  I  ■  -!>■►- 


15 

the  latter  sense,  there  were  three  cUisses  of  books, 
(a)  Canonical  or  inspired,  (b)  JScdesiasiical,  i.  e.  approved 
bj'  the  church  for  reading,  or  orthodox=our  Apocrypha 
where  "canonical"  is  used  in  its  looser  sense,  (c)  Apoc- 
ryphal, books  of  evil  tendency. 

How  are  we  to  tell  which  the  church  did  admit  ? 
1.  By  catalogues.  2.  By  early  versions.  3.  By  readings 
in  public  worship.     4.  By  quotatiotis  in  the  Fathers. 

Catalogues  of  the  sacred  books — great  authority- 
given  1.  by  the  Fathers:  2.  by  Councils,  valuable  (a)  as 
testimony  of  many  fathers  collected  from  a  great  extent 
of  country,    (b)  Best,  for  they  used  more  precise  language. 

Melito — Bishop  of  Sardis  (the  church  mentioned  in 
Revelation) — oldest  catalogue — A.  D.  160 — only  one  of 
2nd  century.  He  travelled  to  Judsea  and  inquired  care- 
fully. He  opposes  all  but  those  in  the  Hebrew  volume. 
Gives  their  names,  not  their  number.  1.  Abundant  tes- 
timony elsewhere,  and  2.  this  is  not  a  quesion  of  dispute. 
Romanists  admit  this.  Adds  the  words  /J  xac  GOifia  after 
Proverbs;  .-.  Romanists  say  it  means  the  Apocryphal  book 
of  Wisdom.  But  the  real  meaning  (/^  yM.t  not  xat  /y)  is 
"  which  is  also  wisdom,"  referring  to  Proverbs.  Lamen- 
tations not  mentioned  :  probably  included  under  Jeremiah. 
Rath,  with  Judges.  So  ITehemiah,  probably  included 
under  Ei^As^^.  Esther  not  mentioned— beginsin  Sep-  -f^^^^^^^^^^ 
tuagint  with  an  Apocryphal  section  and  .*.  Esther  joined  to  ^-^-t^ex^ 
Jeremiah;  or  Melito  inadvertently  rejected  the  whole  of 
it,  or  fault  of  transcriber,  or  included  in  another  book. 

Justin  Martyr.  2nd  century,  died  164  A.  D.  Born 
in  Palestine,  after  conversion  lived  in  Rome.  N'o  regular 
catalogue.  Quotes  frequently,  but  never  from  Apocry- 
pha. In  his  controvery  with  Trypho,  a  Jew  in  Ephesus, 
he  does  not  refer  to  Apocrypha  nor  accuse  the  Jews  of 
rejecting  inspired  works,  as  he  would  naturally  have  done 
had  he  believed  those  books  inspired. 

Syriac  Pesliito,  2nd  century,  only  included  canonical 
books. 

Or^(/e?^— Greek  Father— 3rd  century— most  learned 
of  Greek  Fathers.  Educated  at  Alexandria.  Died  at 
Tyre,  70  years  of  age.  His  catalogue  gives  22  books, 
as  preserved  by  Eusebius  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History,  the 


16 

same  as  Josephus,  and  then  sa^'s — "and  apart  from  these 
are  books  of  Maccabees."  Minor  prophets  omitted,  but 
inadvertent!}^,  and  not  by  Origen  himself,  for  they  are 
found  in  every  other  catalogue,  and  are  necessary  to  com- 
plete the  22,  (he  says  22,  and  names  only  21) — .-.  fault  of 
the  transcriber.  The  old  Latin  translation  by  Kuffin 
gives  it. 

Under  Jeremiah  he  includes  Lamentations  and 
'''-Epistle  of  Jeremiah.'''  This  must  be  either  the  epistle 
to  the  captives  at  Babylon,  Jer.  29;  or  an  Apocryphal 
epistle  given  in  the  Yulgate  as  the  last  chapter  of  Baruch. 
Probable  that  he  was  misled,  for  Origen  follows  the  He- 
brew Qdiwow  p)r of essedly,  and  this  certainly  never  contained 
it. 

Tertullian. — 3rd  century — no  catalogue — speaks  of  24 
books  as  in  Talmud.  Tertullian,  oldest  of  Latin  fathers 
whose  works  have  been  preserved  to  us,  thinks  the  num- 
ber 24  refers  to  the  24  beasts  around  the  throne,  and  the 
24  elders,  in  Revelation.  .-.  In  2nd  and  3rd  centuries,  we 

have  Melito  and  the  Syriac  from   the  Eastern  church ; 

'jf<=v5^^C2^    Origen  from  Greek  church ;  Tertullian  from  Latin  church. 
-"^  Fourth  C^e^z^wr^.— Corroborated  from  all  parts  of  church. 

Coiuicil  of  Laodicea.     Representatives  from  Asia, 
f  Athanasius — I3ishop  of  Alexandria. 
I  Cyril —  "  Jerusalem. 

Greek     j  Ejpiphanius —      "  City  of  Salamine,  in 

Writers.  {  Cyprus 

j  Amphilochius — "  Iconium. 

I  Gregory  of  Kaz- 

(^     ianzus —  "  Constantinople. 

Basil  the  Great  of  Cappadocia,  and  Chrysostom  of 
Constantinople  give  no  formal  catalogues  but  equivalent 
statements — the  former  says  the  number  was  22:  the 
latter  says  all  the  books  of  O.  T.  were  written  in  Hebrew 
— .-.  he  followed  the  Jewish  canon. 

f Hilary — Bishop  of  Poitiers.^ 
Latin     J  Ruffinus —     "  of  Aquileia,  in  Italy. 

Writers.    ]  Jerome — Monk  of  Palestine,  (most    learned 
(^  man  of  his  time,  born   in  Dalraatia.) 

Two,  those  of  Athanasius  and  Epiphanius,  omitted 
J/si/ier— explained  as  under  Melito.  Athanasius  even  puts 


1-1,  .  T-.d:^uww.»-^i  '^<-'A* 


;^  ,  -r^~^  ^  -f'\    '   ^  ^^yxJL^^^^   ."v^M^xTX. 


\ 


17 

it  among  Apocrypha,  but  for  the  same  reason.  There  is 
abundant  proof  of  its  canonicity  :  the  only  difficulty  is  to 
ascertain  clearly  how  this  difference  happened.  They  reject 
whole  of  Esther,  because  burdened  with  spurious  chapters. 
Hilary  says  "  Jeremiah  and  his  epistle  "—(see  Origen) — 
Athanasius,  Cyril  and  Council  of  Laodicea  speak  of 
•'  Jeremiah,  Baruch  and  the  epistle,"  but  Baruch  may  = 
part  of  genuine  Jeremiah,  (29  chap.)  which  speaks  of 
Baruch — may  be  the  Apocryphal  book  of  Baruch,  which 
contains  this  epistle. 

Later  catalogues  have  not  book  o^  Banco 't  in  Apocry- 
pha, which  Rome  says  is  canonical. 

With  these  exceptions  all  sustain  the  Protestant  canon. 
The  catalogues  of  the  lirst  four  centuries  uniting  with 
strict  canon.  Rome  says  they  give  the  Jewish  canon, 
and  not  the  larger  Christian  canon — mere  evasion.  They 
give  the  Jewish  because  the  Christian  is  the  same  as  this. 

Again  they  say  they  are  excusable  for  the  church  had 
given  no  decision  yet.  But  the  church  can't  decide  this: 
all  we  want  is  testimony. 

Romanist  Objectioms. 

At  the  close  of  the  fourth  century  Augustine  (good 
theologian,  poor  critic) — and  the  councils  of  Hippo  and 
Carthage,  added  most  of  the  books  which  are  now  in 
Romish  canon — 

(I.)  But  not  exactly  same.  Baruch  not  in  any — and  first 
Esdras=ITehemiah  and  Ezra,  and  they  contain  a  book  of 
Esdras  (2nd  of  Vulgate,  1st  of  English  apocrypha)  which 
Rome  does  not  recognize  as  inspired. 

(II.)  These  are  "not  =  three  independent  witnesses. 
Augustine  was  bishop  of  Hippo  near  Carthage  and  his 
intiuence  and  views  probably  determined  the  decisions 
of  the  two  Councils. 

(III.)  They  would  not  reasonably  differ  so  greatly 
from  what  was  held  in  all  the  rest  of  the  church,  and  in 
Carthage  itself  at  an  earlier  date. 

(IV.)  The  preface  and  conclusion  of  the  catalogues 
shows  they  were  meant  to  include  not  merely  inspired 
works,  but  also  orthodox,  edifying  ones.  Augustine  ad. 
vises  a  distinction — that  those  received  by  all  the  churches 


^dl  (^i 


18 

should  be  preferred  to  those  received  by  fewer,  and  among 
the  latter  preference  should  be  given  to  most  important 
or  influential  churches.  He  certainly  would  not  have 
made  such  a  distinction  among  inspired  books.  Used 
"canonical"  as  referring  to  good,  profitable,  edifying 
books. 

(V.)  He  elsewhere  says  "the  Jews  had  no  prophet  after 
Malachi  until  the  father  of  John  the  Baptisf."  And  yet 
the  Apocrypha  was  written  in  that  interval.  And  he  says 
"all  the  books  of  0.  T.  were  with  the  Jews,  who^libra- 
rians  of  the  church."  But  the  Apocrypha  was  rejected 
and  also  Judith.  And  says  "  the  Jews  don't  receive 
Maccabees  as  they  do  the  law,  the  prophets,  and  the 
Psalms,  but  it  is  received  by  the  church  as  books  good 
to  be  read,  especially  Mpccabees,  who  suffered  persecu- 
tion so  much  for  the  faith."  A  sect  called  Circumcel- 
iones  allowing  suicide  appealed  to  the  case  of  Drasis  in 
2nd  Maccabees.  To  these  persons  Augustine  replies 
"they  are  in.  great  straits  for  authorities,  having  only  this 
book,  one  which  neither  Jews,  nor  Christ,  nor  the  Apos- 
tles sanctioned  as  they  did  the  prophets  and  Psalms,"  and 
"which  the  church  receives  only  as  the  history  of  men 
who  suffered  for  God."  And  says  "  they  are  to  be  read 
soberly  and  with  caution,  only  that  which  is  sound  being 
received."  Self-murder,  though  approved  in  Maccabees, 
is  not  right.  Maccabees  as  "  canonical,"  means  as  ap- 
proved by  church  for  private  and  public  reading.  "  What 
is  not  in  the  canon  of  the  Jews  cannot  be  received  with 
so  much  confidence  against  opposers."      c^v^*^^lC 

(VI.)  There  is  a  presumption  that  the  churcti'  at  Car- 
thage did  not  design  to  cut  itself  off"  from  rest  of  the 
church,  for  it  proposed  to  submit  this  canon  to  the 
judgment  of  Boniface,  Bishop  of  Rome. 

Question  whether  this  catalogue  is  authentic  and 
among  the  decrees  of  the  church. 

(YII.)  Tertullian,  a  lawyer  of  Carthage,  in  preceding 
century,  and  Primazius  and  Junilius  in  fifth  century,  add 
their  testimony. 

Primazius — Bishop  of  Africa  later — admits  only  24 
books. 


19 

Juniliiis  dlstiiiguisbes  among  the  "  divine"  books — 
some  of  perfect,  some  of  medium,  some  of  no  autlioritj'. 

Hence  Carthage  had  not  the  canon,  in  its  wide  sense, 
— in  strict  sense,  the  same. 

Hei^ce  by  all  the  "■  canon'-  was  used  in  its  looser  sense. 

Thus  we  see  there  was  no  disagreement  in  the  first 
four  centuries,  if  the  word  "  canon  "  be  used  in  the  sti'ict 
sense.     Same  canon  now. 


LECTURE  IV. 

We  have  seen  that  all  the  catalogues  except  three  sus- 
tain  uur  canon  ;  and  that  they  do  so  without  ambiguity. 
And  that  these  three  have  no  more  weight  than  one',  and   ^^~>^f' 
that  they  do  not  in  reality  disagree  from  the  other,  but  ^^  ^ 
merely    use  the  word  canon    in    the   loose  sense.       But   ^ 
even  if  this  be  not  so,  it  is  enougb  to  condemn  the  Apoc-         ^ 
rypha   that  it   is   not  in   any   catalogue  before   the  4th 
century. 

Parallel  of  (J.  and  IN.  T.  Oanoa.  To  neutralize  this 
the  Romanists  bring  up  the  Antelegoraena,  disputed 
books  of  the  N.  T.  which  were  not  generally  received 
until  the  4th  century,  but  which  we  all  hold  canonical 
now.  But  the  cases  are  not  similar.  The  Antelegomena 
consists  of  a  few  small  books  which  required  time  to  be- 
come generally  known  ;  they  were  gladly  accepted  where 
first  'known,  aiid  gradually  spread.  But  the  Apocrypha 
(1)  were  never  so'accepted  where  first  known ;  (2)  where 
so  adopted,  it  was  without  critical  investigation  ;  (3.)  were 
classed  with  0.  T.  loosely;  (4.)  and  even  in  this  lax  sense 
w^ere  not  universally  received.     N.  T.  w^as. 

Greek  Church.— R\^tovy  of  the  Canon  after  the  4th  Cen- 
tury. Followed  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  against  the 
Apocrypha  without  a  dissenting  voice. 

Latin  C7mrc7i.— Division.  Many  were  influenced  by 
Augustine's  great  learning;  as  well  as  influenced  by  the 
growino;  custom  of  public  reading;  others  follow  Jerome 
(strict),^but  the  greater  number,  especially  of  the  intelli- 
gent, favored  only  the  strict  canon.  Catalogues  for  the 
large  canon  in  all  this  time,  only  two  or  three. 


20 

Gregory  -¥ifr,  the  Great,  A.  D.  600,  First  Bishop  of 
Rome,  quoting  from  Maccabees,  sy^eaks  of  them  as  "  not 
canonical,  but  yet  published  for  the  edification  of  the 
church."  Councils  of  Trent,  France,  Eiigland,  &c.,  agree 
with  strict  canon.      All  are  considered  authorities. 

There  are  few  genuine  authorities  favoring  Augus- 
tine's catalogue. 

In  the  16th  century,  Cardinal  Xi'^^^'ies,  Archbishop 
of  Toledo,  (author  of  Complutensian  Polyglot,)  says  in 
the  preface,  as  his  dedication  to  Pope  Leo,  and  approved 
by  him,  "These  books  of  the  Apocryphal  O.  T.  (given 
in  Greek  only)  were  not  in  the  canon,  and  were  received 
by  the  church  rather  for  edification  than  for  doctrine." 

Cardinal  Cagetan,  at  Rome,  an  eminent  theologian, 
who  would  have  been  Pope,  had  he  lived  after  Clement 
y  ^,  defended  the  strict  canon   onlj'  ten  years  before  the 
Council  of  Trent. 

The  Prologue  of  Jerome,  defending  the  strict  canon,  is 
always  in  the  preface  to  the  Romish  Bible. 

Council  of  Trent — ecumenical  and  binding  in  its  de- 
crees—  8th  April,  1546,  adopted  the  looser  canon  as 
inspired  :  "  The  Apocrypha  is  to  be  received  with  equal 
veneration  with  the  other  O.  T.  books,"  and  decreed  anath- 
ema on  those  who  rejected  it.  This  is  really  i\\Q  first  time 
it  was  ever  decreed  that  these  books  were  on  a  par  with 
the  inspired  w^ord  of  God  ;  or  that  those  of  contrary 
views  should  be  anathema.  The  decision  was  owing  not 
to  thorough  investigation,  but  to  the  fact  that  at  that 
time  many  of  the  "  lessons  "  of  the  t^hurch  were  from  the 
Apocrypha,  and  to  the  desire  to  make  an  issue  with  the 
Protestants.  There  was  much  and  earnest  dissent  in  the 
council  even  then. 

Other  Romanist  Arguments  for  Apocrypha^  besides  the 
early  catalogues : 

I.  Contained  in  early  versions.  ^ 

XL  Read  in  public  worshij)  early.  ^ 

III.   Quoted  by  early  Fathers  as  of  Divine  authority."^ 

Prelim.  Remark — The  whole  church  w\as  united  for 
the  strict  canon.  Even  if  undue  value  was  placed  upon 
the  Apocrypha  in  certain  places,  even  if  some  have  ex- 
pressed themselves  thoughtlessly,  incautiously,  on  the 
subject,  yet  the  general  opinion  is  against  them. 


21 

I.  Objection  "  contained  in  early  versions." — Answer. 
(1.)  Apocrj'pba  was  not  in  all  ancient  versions.  The 
Sj/riac  Peshito,  and  the  Latin  version  of  Jerome  did  not 
have  them.  The  latter  is  the  foundation  for  the  Vulgate, 
which  took  the  Apocrypha^  however,  from  an  earlier 
Latin  version — the  Itala. 

(2.)  Though  in  the  Sepiuagint,  it  was  there  as  a  mere 
appendage,  not  as  equal  to  the  rest  in  authority,  because 
the  Alexandrian  Jews,  among  whom  and  for  whom  the 
translation  was  made,  did  not  so  receive  the  Apocrypha; 
other  early  versions  made  from  the  Septuagint  were 
copied  in  the  Apocrypha  as  an  integral  part. 

(3.)  The  Romish  argument  inverts  the  real  order  of 
facts  and  makes  the  effect  the  cause,  saying  it  was  in 
early  versions  because  it  was  inspired,  whereas  it  was  con- 
sidered inspired  by  them  merely  because  it  was  in  ancient 
versions.  There  was  a  great  dearth  of  religious  books, 
and  therefore  these  were  more  naturally  classed  with 
Bible,  and  bound  with  it,  to  •'  kill  two  birds  with  one 
stone  "  in  their  circulation.  For  most  early  Fathers  did 
not  understand  Hebrew  ;  it  was  therefore  translated  from 
the  Greek  versions. 

(4.)  From  analogjj  of  modern  versions.  It  might  have 
been  included  inthe  early  versions  without  being  con- 
sidered inspired.  See  Luther's  version— King  James' 
version. 

(5.)  Their  argument,  if  valid,  proves  too  much.  They 
reject  as  uncanonical,  3rd  Esdras  and  3rd  Maccabees, 
and  the  Prayer  of  Manasseh,  which  are  in  early  ver- 
sions. The  Ethiopic  version  contains  even  more,  as  the 
book  of  Enoch. 

II.  Objection—''  Read  in  public  worship  in  same  man- 
ner as  cai'ionical  books,  and  therefore  equal." 

(l.j  The  fact  is  admitted  but  the  argument  from  it  is 
unsound;  everythins:  turns  on  the  intention  with  which 
they  read  it ;  must  first  show  this  before  the  argument  is 
of  anv  weight. 

(£)  From  analogy.  Church  of  England  shows  that  its 
beino;  read  in  churches  and  being  canonical,  are  not  the 
same' thing  necessarily.  "  Read  on  festival  days  and  not 
on  the  Sabbath." 


22 

(3.)  That  the  early  church  in  reading  these  books  thus 
did  not  thereb}^  esteem  them  canonical,  appears  from 
express  testimony.  Jerome- — "Read  for  instruction,  but 
not  to  prove  any  doctrine."  Very  explicit.  Euffin  says, 
*'  there  are  other  books  not  canonical,  but  are  called 
Ecclesiastical,  as  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  or  Cyrach  or  Eccle- 
siasticus.  To  be  read  in  the  churches,  but  not  for  authority 
in  faith."  AtkoJiaduB — "Contains  not  indefinite,  but 
determined  and  canonized  books,  but  also  others  not 
canonical,  but  read  bv  catechumens,  as  Wisdom,  Cyrach, 
Judith,  Tobit."^^^  '«    .   -      m'     .  ..    ^..^c    lA..,.x.s^ 

(4.)  This  argument  also  would  prove  too  much,  for 
man}'  books  were  read  which  Rome  herself  does  not 
esteem  canonical. 

III.  Objection — "  Quoted  by  Early  Fathers  in  a  way 
which  shows  they  esteemed  them  inspired."  The  most 
plausible  objection  ;  but  even  if  well-founded,  we  must 
take  it  cautiously  in  connection  with  other  evidence  But 
it  is  not  a  valid  objection,  however. 

(1.)  Ascertain  whether  the  quotation  alleged  is  realjj^ 
from  the  Apocq^^ha. 

(2.yTf  so,  whether  it  is  quoted  as  from  the  inspired 
word  of  God.  -"    ^     ''"•  ••i*^'  ,j->#  <«« -^^l-u-.^. 

I.  Fact  of  being  quoted  ?     Answered. 

First  Century.  In  the  Fathers  of  this  century  there 
are  a  few  allusions  to  persons  and  things  in  the  Apoci^- 
pha,  and  a  few  expressions  like  those  in  the  Apocrypha, 
b-ut  n^_  formal  quotations  from  it.  This  shows  merely 
that  they  were  %cqu.ai»lte^l  with  the  Apocrypha. 

From  the  Second  Century  on.  (a)  Freely  quoted.  So  are 
Home'r,  Yirgil,  &c.  Shows  only  that  tliey  were  known 
or  contained  something  pertaining  to  the  matter  in  hand. 
(b)  The  Apocrypha  is  mentioned  with  respect  and  rever- 
ence, and   appealed  to  as  true^  but  not  as  inspired. 

II.  Manner  of  quotation  :  There  must  be  something 
in  the  mode  of  quotation  showing  it  to  have  been  regarded 
as  inspired  ;  of  this  there  is  no  proof  Rome  says  they 
do  so  quote.  (1.)  "They  make  use  of  the  same  formulas 
in  quoting  from  Apocrypha  as  in  quoting  from  the  other 
books."  ^(2.)  "  They  employ  the  same  terms  in  speaking 
of  the  writers  of  these  as  in  speaking  of  those  of  the 
other  books." 


23 

Objection  I.  Formula — "  It  is  written,"  the  established 
phrase  for  "quoting"  from  the  inspired  word.  The}-  speak 
of  Apocrypha  as  the  Holy  Scriptures,  Divine  Scriptures. 
But  (1)  although  to  us  the  word  Scripture,  from  long  and 
familiar  usage  suggests  the  Bible,  yet  its  original  import 
is  general — writings  {yoaipri)  ;  and -sa^ret^  scriptures — writ- 
ings on  sac7ed  sul)jects.  In  other  words,  they  merely 
meant  Sacred  Literature,  in  contrast  with  Profane  Lit- 
erature, using  the  loose  sense  of  canonical. 

(i^.)  That  the  phrases  are  used  in  this  general  sense 
or  in  the  loose  sense  just  mentioned,  is  shown  by  the  fact 
that  the  same  writers  who  exclude  these  books  from  the 
inspired  word,  yet  cite  them  under  these  terms — Origen, 
Jerome,  Athanasius.  Origen  quotes  Tobit,  Wisdom,  &c., 
and  speaks  of  them  as  the  Divine  word,  and  yet  in  his 
catalogue  of  the  canon,  leaves  them  out. 

(3.)  Such  distinctions  are  made  in  the  "  divine  books," 
&c.,  as  to  show  that  these  terms  must  have  been  general. 
Junilius  says  "  some  divine  books  are  of  perfect  author- 
ity, some  of  medium,  some  of  no  authority."  Cyprian 
quotes  from  the  Apocrypha  as  the  Scriptures,  and  then 
tries  to  (establish  the.  truth  of  the  quotation  by  referring  to 
Acts,  which  he  calls  the  "  testimony  of  truth." 

(4.)  Analogy — The  Homilies  of  the  Chu.rch  of  Eng- 
land cite  some  books  under  the  name  of  Scriptures,  as 
the  Book  of  Wisdom. 

(5.)  Their  argument  proves  too  much.  Books  are  cited 
under  this  name  by  Augustine  and  others,  which  Roman- 
ists themselves  do  not  admit  and  never  have  admitted, 
viz  :  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  the  Book  of  Enoch, 
even  the  Sibylline  Yerses,  &c.  v^/;^  ■■  tt'  Vnu.^'L'^ 
,rl  Another  class  of  quotations.  Writers  are  called  by 
titles  proper  only  to  inspired  men,  as  prophets,  etc.,  or 
the  writings  are  attributed  to  some  known  inspired 
writers,  as""  the  5  Books  of  Solomon,"  viz  :  the  three 
genuine  ones.  Wisdom,  and  Cyrach. 

Answer — (1.)  These  expres'sions  are  in  a  loose,  popu- 
lar sense,  so  declared  by  Augustine,  who  says  the  two 
other  books  are  attributed  to  Solomon  (see  above)  and^ 
are  so  because  of  their  similarity  of  style.  So  "  Book  of 
Daniel"  does  not  assert  that  Daniel  was  the  author,  and 
so  "  Baruch  and  Jeremiah." 


24 

(2.)  If  we  insist,  however,  on  these  points,  they  only 
prove  that  the  Fathers  were  mistaken,  for  it  can  clearly 
be  shown  that  many  of  the  books  so  spoken  of  are  not 
genuine. 

(3.)  The  Fathers  did  not  mean  that  they  were  the  word 
of  God,  for  they  elsewhere  expressly  exclude  them. 

(4.)  Analogy — Church  of  England  calls  Baruch  "  a 
prophet.'' 

(5.)  Proves  too  much — "  argumentum  ad  hominem." 
So  Rome  cites  3rd  and  4th  Esclras  under  Ezra. 

Ergo,  the  Apocrypha  was  excluded  by  the  Jews,  by  our 
Lord  and  the  Apostles,  and  by  the  Christian  church 
generally,  if  not  universally,  until  Council  of  Trent. 

rv  Internal   Evidence. 

^ot  decisive  (e.  g.  Esther,  Ruth,  Ecclesiastes,)  yet  aids 
in  settling  the  extent  of  the  canon.  Even  Luther  doubted 
the  canonicity  of  the  Epistle  of  James,  because  it  seemed 
to  contradict  the  apostle  Paul.  Historical  evidence  must 
decide  historical  questions.  A  book  containing  what  is 
false  in  fact  or  doctrine  or  unworthy  of  God,  is  not  in- 
spired :  Tobit  and  Judith  so— are  full  of  topographical 
and  chronological  mistakes. 

Tobit— 1  :"4-5.  In  the  youth  of  Tobit  the  ten  tribes 
revolted  from  Judah  under  Jeroboam.  Hence  he  must 
have  been  270  years  old  at  the  A^ssyrian  captivity,  at 
which  time  he  was  taken  captive.  But  (14  :  11)  he  was 
only  158  years  old  when  he  died.    ^cL,l^^   ^i,. ,      ';^  ^v-  . 

His  angels'  visits,  contrary  to  all  analogy,  are  long 
continued;  an  angel  journeying  on  foot  with  him  300 
miles.  The  angel  Raphael  induces  him  to  lie  to  Azarias 
and  to  call  himself  a  captive  of  Naphtali — 5:  12.   12:  15. 

He  teaches  a  doctrine  nowhere  else  taught :  of  seven 
angels  going  in  and  out  before  God  :  borrowed  from  Per- 
sian superstition. 

His  absurdities.  An  evil  spirit  in  love  with  a  woman  ; 
can  be  driven  away  only  by  a  smoking  heart  and  the  liver 
of  a  fish — 6:  7-17.  Says  almsgiving  can  ^deliver  from 
death  and  purge  away  all  sin.     12  :  9.     14  :i'lO  and  11. 

Judith — 6^  10-11.  The  scene  is  laid  in  Bethuliah  ; 
no  trace  of  it.  The  name  means  virgin.  It  is  probably 
an  allegor}^  or  romance. 


25 

There  is  no  time  possible  for  the  events  related;  as  the 
protracted  peace  of  80  years,  &c.  The  march  of  Holo- 
fernes  is  decidedly  zigzag.  The  book  says  it  was  in  the 
reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  king  of  Nineveh,  (1:  1) ;  but 
Babylon  was  his  capital.  That  Joiakim  was  the  contem- 
porary high-priest ;  but  there  was  no  high-priest  of  this 
name  till  after  the  exile. 

Judith's  language  and  conduct  is  false  and  deceitfuL 
Teaches  the  Jesuitical  plea  that  "  the  end  justifies 
the  means."  Even  pra3's  God  to  assist  her  in  so  doing. 
The  crime  of  Simeon,  condemned  in  Gen. ^9  :  5  :  is  here 
praised.  It  is  said  to  be  a  crime  to  break  me  ceremonial 
law  even  to  save  life.     (11  :  10.)    Jesus  taught  otherwise. 


LECTURE  V. 

Internal  Evidence  Against  the  ApocnypHA. 

(continued). 

The  Books  of  Wisdom  and  Cyrach  or  Ecclesiasticus, 
contain  many  excellent  maxims,  yet  their  morality  is 
defective,  and  is  based  mainly  on  expediency.  And  the 
wisdom  is  less  that  of  Solomon  than  of  the  late  Alexan- 
drian philosophers. 

Wisdom  7 :  25 — The  doctrines  of  Emanation  from 
God,  and  (8:  19-20)  pre-existence  of  the  soul  are 
taught,  and  that  the  world  was  created  from  preexisting 
matter. 

9:  l5_That  the  material  body  is  a  weight  upon  the 
soul. 

10  :  15-20 — Israel  is  represented  as  righteous,  and  all 
God's  favors  to  it  as  a  just  reioard.  Even  real  miracles 
are  spoken  of  in  an  exaggerated  way,  from  mere  love  of 
the  marvellous. 

16  :  20-21 — It  says  the  manna  was  agreeable  to  every 
taste,  and  tempered  itself  to  every  man's  liking. 

16th  and  17th  Chaps.— Plagues  of  Egypt  are  described 
with  embellishments  which  are  not  warranted. 

18  :  24-25 — False  explanation  of  the  high-priest's 
dress  :  virtue  is  ascribed  to  his  dress  which  is  due  only 
to  his  mediatorial  office. 


26 

10  :  4 — Cain's  murder  of  Abel  is  said  to  have  caused 
the  flood. 

14:  15 — The  account  of  the  origin  of  idolatry,  flimsy 
and  untrue.  "  Owing  to  fathers  making  images  of  their 
deceased  children."  No  moral  cause  is  assigned,  as  by 
Paul,  in  Rom.  1:  21-23. 
rrvilrvvTth  Chap,  and  9  :  7-8 — Solomon  said  to  be  the  author, 
yet  the  people  are  spoken  of  as  being  at  the  time  under 
subjection  to  their  enemies — 15  :   14. 

And  it  can  be  proved  that  it  was  originally  written  in 
Greek. 

Cyrach  or  Ecclesiasticus. — Many  passages  teaching 
justification  by  works. 

3  :  30 — Almsgiving  atones  for  sin. 

3  :   3  — Honoring  parents  atones  for  sin. 
35  :  3  — And  forsaking  unrighteousness  atones  for  sin. 
12 :  26-28 — Kindness  to  the  wicked  is  prohibited. 
33  :  26-28 — Cruelty  to  slaves  is  allowed. 
50:  25-26 — Hate  towards  Samaritans  is  also  allowed. 
Exhortations  to  do  right  to  gain  the  favor  of  men.     Expe- 
QCi^-i.-  ^.'1       diency  substitnted  for  right  as  the  ground  of  obligation. 
^^' '   /W  t.  V  ^^  •  1^ — "  Weep  for  the  dead,  lest  thou  be  evil  spoken 

'  '  ■•  of." 

Chap.  7. — Carnal  enjoyment  taught,  because  life  is 
l^i'ief.  ,  ^z,i. 

45  :  15. — "  Aaron  priest,  as  long  as  the  heavens 
stand." 

Baruch. — Said  to  have  been  written  by  Baruch,  the 
helper  of  Jeremiah,  yet  originally  in  Greek,  and  quotes 
IS'ehemiah  and  Daniel,  who  lived  later.  Baruch  is  said 
to  have  gone  to  Babylon  :  did  not  if  the  real  Baruch, 
but  went  to  Egypt. 

The  Temple  is  spoken  of  as  standing,  and  ofiPerings 
were  to  be  made  in  Jerusalem,  though  in  Jeremiah's 
time  it  was  in  ashes. 

Belshazzar  is  called  the  son  of  ^N'ebuchadnezzar, 
though  he  was  \i\%  grandson.  ' 

Speaks  of  sending  vessels  back  by  Jeremiah,  (1 :  8) 
though  this  was  not  done  till  after  the  exile.  See 
Ezral :  7.  - 


27 

3  :  4—"  God  hears  the  prayers  of  the  dead."  (So 
also  2d  Maccabees,  15 :  14  teaches.)  Proof  texts  for 
Romanists. 

The  captivity  according  to  Jeremiah,  70  years ;  Baruch's 
Epistle  of  Jeremiah  says  seven  generations.  Manifestly 
written  later  therefore,  and  as  an  explanation. 

I.  and  II.  Maccabees. — I.  Has  many  errors,  histor- 
ical and  geographical,  but  is  better  than  IL,  which 
abounds  in  fobles  and  legends.  In  the  latter,  preserva- 
tion of  sacred  fire;  Jeremiah  hiding  the  tabernacle  and 
ark  and  altar  of  incense,  in  Mount  ]N"ebo,and  the  appari- 
tion which  is  said  to  have  prevented  the  Emperor  Ilelio- 
dorus  from  invading  the  sanctity  of  the  Temple.  Justi- 
fies suicide ;  prayers  for  the  dead. 

The  writer  does  not  even  claim  inspiration — 15  :  38-39. 
"  Wrote  according  to  his  ability." 

Esther.  — The  genuine  Book  of  Esther  only  in  Hebrew ; 
the  spurious  additions  only  in  Greek,  and  in  the  old 
Latin  version.  Jerome  remarks  as  to  the  addition,  that 
some  writer  undertook  to  add  what  might  have  been  said. 
But  it  really  breaks  the  connection,  contradicts,  and  adds 
things  improbable  and  evidently  untrue.  The  Sophists 
did  so  often. 

Additions  to  Daniel. — Three  of  them. 

I.  Prayer  of  the  three  children  in  the  fiery  furnace 
Devotional,  but  not  adapted  to  the  occasion  or  their  situ- 
ation, (verses  23-27)  and  contains  unwarrantable  asser- 
tions. 

II.  Story  of  Susannah — improbable. 

III.  Bel  and  the  Dragon — absurd  and  ridiculous. 
The  Council  of  Trent,  though  few  in  members,  and 

representing  a  limited  territory,  imposed  the  Apocrypha 
as  inspired,"in  the  face  of  all  preceding  authority,  upon 
the  whole  Romish  church,  denouncing  its  anathema 
on  all  who  presumed  to  reject  it.  Since  then,  of  course, 
the  line  of  witnesses  in  the  Latin  church,  against  the 
Apocrypha,  has  ceased.  Yet  some  few  object,  and  make 
a  distinction  between  the  Deuterocanonical  (i.  e.  the 
Apocrypha)  and  the  Protocanonical  books — the  former 
as  of  less  authority  and  veneration.  But  this  does  not 
accord  v.ith  the  language  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  and 
there  can  be  no  degrees  in  such  a  matter. 


28 

Greek  Church. 

Favors  the  strict  canon. 

Cyril  Leucar,  1631,  Constantinople — address  to  the 
Council  of  Laodicea. 

Dositheus,  of  Jerusalem,  1672,  under  Romish  influ- 
ence, sanctioned  the  Apocrypha. 

Platon,  of  Moscow,  a'pproves  of  the  authorized  Rus- 
sian catechism,  and  authorizes  only  the  strict  Jewish 
canon. 

Protestant   Church. 

Has  always  been  unanimous  for  the  strict  Hebrew 
canon  as  to  its  inspiration.  The  opinion  about  the  use  of 
the  Apocrypha  has  been  various,  (none  regarding  it  as 
inspired,  but)  some  approving  the  "  reading  of  it  for  in- 
struction in  life  and  manners,  though  not  for  doctrine" 
(Jerome.)  Church  of  England  : — the  Westminster  Con- 
fession says  it  is  to  be  used  no  more  than  human  writ- 
ings. 

The  former  of  these  views  naturally  led  to  keeping 
it  in  Bibles  as  an  appendix;  the  latter  banished  it 
altogether  from  the  volume.  The  antagonism  culminated 
in  the  "  Apocryphal  controversy."'  The  German  branches 
-ot^'d**^* /Jc<^U.  of  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  used  Luther's 
version,  containing  the  Aprocypha.  In  1811,  the  Society 
resolved  to  require  its  auxiliaries  to  leave  out  the  Apocry- 
pha. Owing  to  opposition,  the  order  was  rescinded  in 
1814.  In  1819  the  Society  allowed  their  auxiliaries  to 
print  the  Catholic  Bibles  in  Italian,  Spanish  and  Portu- 
guese Bibles  and  insert  the  Apocrypha  with  the  inspired 
books  indiscriminately — saying  the  Bible  could  not  be 
distributed  in  those  countries  unless  it  were  so.  Much 
opposition,  resulting  in  the  compromise  (1822)  that  they 
should  use  the  money  of  the  Society  only  to  print  the  strict 
canon,  the  Apocrypha  at  private  expense.  Still  many 
were  dissatisfied.  -In  1827  it  was  resolved  by  the  Society 
that  "  no  person  or  association  circulating  the  Apocrypha 
should  receive  aid  from  the  Society,  and  none  but  bound 
books  should  be  issued."  Strife  renewed  in  Germany 
lately,  some  theologians  entirely  excluding  the  Apocrypha, 
some  claiming  a  subordinate  place  for  it  owing  to  long 


29 


ecclesiastical  usage.  But  the  usage  grew  up  when  books 
were  scarce;  now  that  books  are  plenty  and  accessible, 
it  is  not  necessary  to  put  the  two  together. 

But  the  Apocrypha  deserves  to  be  carefully  read,  for 
its  prominence  in  the  controversy  and  because  it  has 
some  intrinsic  worth  (especially  I.  Maccabees),  and  sheds 
much  light  on  the  canonical  books,  explains  customs,  &c.   - 

The^threefold  division  of  Law,  Prophets  and  Ilagio- 
grapha  or  Kethuvim  (writings.)  This  threefold  classifica- 
tion is  first  referred  to  in  the  P^rologue  to  Cyrach,  where 
this  division  is  mentioned  twice.  Five  books  are  in  the 
Law,  eii^ht  in  the  Prophets,  and  eleven  in  the  Hagiog- 
rapha.  For  Josephus'  division  see  previous  lecture, 
page  9.  He  made  it  for  his  own  use  and  purpose.  See 
also  Luke  24:  44.  ,     ,      ,      x^  o     ,        ^ 

Our  Lord  only  singles  out  the  book  of  Psalms  from 
the  Hagiographa  as  mainly  Messianic;  or^else  the  Psalms, 
as  being  the  leading  book,  first  in  order,  and  most  im- 
portant,''is  named  to  include  the  rest.  So  we  speak  of 
the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  Book  of  Common  Prayer 
It  is  said  they  also  bear  internal  evidence  of  gradual  and 
successive  formation. 

"  Law  first ;  all  given  subsequently  were  afterwards 
o-athered  into  a  second  volume,  the  Prophets,  which  was 
dosed;  a  third  collection  was  again  made  of  ones 
which  were  not  before  known  or  discovered,  and  this  is  the 
third  division  or  Kethuvim."  Those  who  make  this  state- 
ment say  it  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  there  are  books  in 
the  third  division  which  should  have  been  iii  the  seco  d 
thevhad  been  known.  Daniel  is  not  in  the  Prophets  but  in 
theVnird  division.  Kings  in  the  second  among  F»'ophot. 
but  Chronicles,  which  has  precisely  the  same  chamc^^^^ 
is  in  the  third.  Hence  they  say  the  formation  into  thiee 
classes  was  a  process  of  time  and  discovery. 

ReiDlv-I  This  view  is  based  upon  the  idea  that  the 
collection  of' the  canon  was  a  purely  literary  rescue  f^^^^ 
destruction.  But  the  books  were  all  we  known,  and  all 
the  collectors  had  to  do  was  to  arrange  them- 

n  This  theory  of  time,  &c.,  does  not  account  fortlie 
phenomenon.     TlLy  say  the  book  of^the  Prophets  was 

closed.     What  is  meant  by  ^^]''\^f'''^^^^^^^ 
any  book  remained  ;  no  sense  in  which  it  can  be  true. 


30 

III.  The  whole  theory  is  in  conflict  with  the  facts :  the 
Psalms,  &c.,  were  known  w^ien  the  collection  of  the 
Prophets  was  made,  and  the  Psalms  were  used  in  tem- 
ple-worship.    Why  not  then  in  this  division  ? 

IV.  There  is  an  easy  and  satisfactory  explanation. 
The  Rabbins  distinguished  various  grades  of  inspiration 
in  the  inspired  writers.  1st.  The  Law,  given  to  Moses  face 
to  face  with  God  ;  2nd.  the  Prophets,  those  written  under 
the  influence  of  the  spirit  of  prophecy  ;  3rd.  those  written 
under  the  ordinary  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Some 
truth  in  this  tradition.  The  ground  is  the  official  char- 
acter of  the  authors. 

1.  Moses'  functions  were  unique,  the  legislator. 

2.  Prophets  officialbj  such,  class  by  themselves. 

3.  There  were  other  inspired  men  not  set  apart 
specially,  men  exercising  secular  functions,  as,  David, 
Solomon,  Daniel,  Ezra,  Nehemiah.  The  Chronicles  were 
probably  written  by  Ezra,  the  Kings  by  a  Prophet;  using 
the  word  in  the  proper  official  sense  of  the  term. 

.-.  The  classification  regards  not  the  contents  but  the 
authors. 

Only  one  book,  Lame'ntations,  causes  any  embar- 
rassment, according  to  this  principle.  The  prophecies  of 
Jeremiah  are  among  the  Prophets  :  and  Hjs  probable 
that  Lamentations  was  originally  also  so  included.  It 
seems  so  from  the  enumerations  of  Josephus  and  of 
Origen,  who  give  only  22  books,  and  Lamentations 
must  then  have  been  included  under  Jeremiah's  proplie- 
cies.  It  was  probably  transferred  afterward  for  liturgical 
purposes,  or  from  its  resemblance  to  the  Psalms. 

This  division  was  in  force  in  the  time  of  Christ, 
Matth.  23  :  35.  As  if  to  take  from  the  extremes  of  Scrip- 
ture, as  well  as  of  time,  Abel  (in  the  first  book)  is 
mentioned,  and  Zacharias  from  (probably  the  last  book 
of  the  O.  T.  written)  II.  Chronicles.  Though  this  is  not 
decisive. 

Greek  and  Latin  and  English  Bibles  give  a  fourfold 
division. 

1.  Law — Pentateuch."^ 

2.  Historical  Books.     ! 

3.  Poetical  "       j 

4.  Prophetical       "     J 


I'  / 


31 

Athanasiiis  divides  into  four  Pentateuchs,  covering  all 
but  two  of  the  books,  Ezra  and  Esther. 

1.  Moses'  Books. 

2.  Five  Historical  Books. 

3.  Poetical  Books — Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesias- 
tes.  Canticles. 

4.  Prophetical  Books — Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel, 
Daniel,  and  the  Minor  Prophets. 

Samaritans    had  27 — count  double  books  as  single.     ^  ^  <r>  a.^ 
This  corresponds  with  the  Hebrew  alphabet,  22   conson- 
ants, 5  double  forms.     This  is  according  to  Jerome  and 
Epiphanius. 

The  number  33  has  also  been  given,  making  with  ]N". 
T.  Books,  60  in  all.  This  was  done  by  counting  the  12 
Minor  Prophets  singly,  and  not  as  one.  The  number 
60  was  given  a  mystical  sense,  as  referring  to  the  60 
queens  of  Solomon.  The  English  version  of  the  0.  T. 
numbers  39. 


32 


Ceremonial  Institutions  of  Mosaic 


LECTURE  16'  /r.^cr:.,-^^.,^^c 

The  Law  of  Moses  as  it  relates  to  worship,  may  be 
divided  into — 

Sacred  Places — Tabernacle. 
"       Persons — Priesthood, 
''       Actions — The  Ritual. 
"        Times — The  Calendar. 

1.  The  Tabernacle. — Rectangular;  30  cubits  long, 
10  wide,  10  high — divided  into  2  apartments  by  a  richly 
wrought  veil.  1.  Holy  of  Holies — Innermost  room;  per- 
fect cube;  10  cubits  each  way.  2.  The  Holy  Place — Rect- 
angle ;  20  cubits  long,  10  high  and  wide.  This  was  sepa- 
rated from  the  court  by  ano'ther  rail.  3.  The  Court — 100 
cubits  long,  50  cubits  wide,  5  cubits  high.  The  people 
w^ere  admitted  only  to  the  court,  in  which  stood  the  Altar 
of  Burnt  Offering  and  the  Larer.  The  Priests  were  admit- 
ted into  the  Holy  Place,  in  which  were  the  Altar  of 
Incense^  the  Golden  Candlestick  and  the  Table  of  Shew 
Bread.  Into  the  Holy  of  Holies,  containing  the  Ark  and 
Mercy  Seat,  only  the  High  Priest  could  go,  and  that  once 
a  year — on  the  great  day  of  Atonement. 

Meaning  and  Design. 

Is  there  any  special  signification  in  the  structure, 
apart  from  its  uses?  It  might  be  that  the  ritual  w^as  the 
only  significant  portion,  and  everything  else  subsidiary 
to  it.  There  must  be  some  place  for  this  ritual,  also 
priests  and  set  times.  While  it  is  true  that  the  ritual 
was  the  most  essential  and  important,  to  which  the  others 
are  subsidiary,  yet  the  latter  had  their  signification. 
1.  This  appears ^r5/,  because  the  arrangement  and  plan 
of  the  structure  are  not  determined  by  simple  regard^  to 
convenience  or  adaptability  of  its  uses,     (a)  The  build- 


.     (     ^   •  k. 

r^'.. 

-^t,-#»=*^^^  ;- 

/r'C-^^    (> 

'  ^ 

/f 

-A 

^^i^^^ 

~r 

" 

33 

iug  was  not  demanded  to  shelter  the  crowd  of  worship- 
pers, for  they  were  not  really  sheltered  at  all.  The  court 
was  open  to  the  sky.  (b)  The  dimensions  were  out  of 
proportion  to  its  contents,  (c)  No  purpose  of  convenience 
was  answered  by  closing  these  from  the  light,  nor  (d) 
do  we  know  why  they  were  set  toward  the  East. 

Second  Reason. — The  minute  and  careful  directions  in 
the  most  trifling  matters,  e.  g.,  the  number  of  boards 
in  the  court,  chords,  loops,  curtains,  &c.  This  shows 
some  further  meaning  in  the  thing  itself.  ilTothing  was 
left  to  human  invention.  All  w^as  prescribed  by  God. 
This  shows  its  sacredness  and  heavenly  origin,  just  as  in 
Rev.  21  :  15  ;  11 :  1-2  ;  also  in  Ezekiel  Rev.  11 : 1-2— The 
court  was  not  to  be  measured  but  given  to  the  Gentiles. 
Measurements  imply  sacredness. 

Third  Reason.— Mosqs  (Ex.  25  :  40;  26  :  30)  was  di- 
rected to  make  all  things  after  the  pattern  shown  him  in 
the  Mount. 

What  was  the  Symbolical  Meaning?  Various  views: 

I.  The  31aterialistic. — Some  say  that  it  was  modelled 
after  the  tents  of  earthly  rulers,  and  was  designed  to  be 
the  abode  of  the  divine  monarch  of  Israel.  There  is  a 
gross  material  sense  of  this  view  held  by  some,  as  though 
God  had  the  same  necessities  and  wants  as  men.  This 
view^  is  inconsistent  with  God's  nature.  To  this  we  say  : 
The  plan  does  not  correspond  to  a  human  tent.  The 
seat  or  throne  is  set  in  a  dark  apartment ;  the  candlestick 
in  another  room.  The  food  is  on  the  table,  the  tire  on 
the  altar,  but  no  bed.  Its  being  made  after  the  pattern 
shown  in  the  Mount,  proves  that  it  was  not  made  after  a 
human  tent.  Others  who  have  held  this  general  view, 
said  it  was  an  ideal  structure  for  God,  who  had  no  need 
of  shelter,  but  yet  condescended  to  dwell  in  a  tent. 
There  is  a  measure  of  truth  in  this,  but  still  it  does  not 
explain  the  structure. 

II.  Cosmical  Theorfj.— They  say  the  Tabernacle,  &c., 
represents  the  Universe.  The  Tabernacle  represented 
heaven,  and  the  Court  represented  the  earth. 

Three  Modifications  of  this  Vieio  ; 

1.  It  represented  the  material  heaven  and  earth. 
Philo,  Josephus,   some  Christian  Fathers,  Talmud  and 


34 

the  Rabbins,  held  this.  They  held  that  the  contents  of 
the  Tabernacle  were  celestial  and  those  in  the  Court  ter- 
restrial. The  Seven  Lamps  represented  the  seven  planets  : 
Twelve  Loaves=twelve  signs  of  the  Zodiac  ;  Two  Chern- 
bim=--the  two  hemispheres  of  the  heavens,  winged  to 
denote  constant  motion.  Four  Materials  of  the  Veil  —  the 
four  elements.  In  the  Court,  the  Laver^the  sea.  The  Altar 
=  the  land.  This  view  is  false  because  (1)  there  is  no  in- 
timation in  Scripture  that  these  objects  were  represented 
in  the  temple.  (2)  This  would  be  a  mere  worship  of 
nature,  like  the  heathen  who  had  these  objects  in  their 
temples.  (3)  The  very  objects  here  supposed  to  be  repre- 
sented, are  those  which  were  forbidden  to  be  represented 
by  images  and  worshipped — Deut.  4:  19;  Ex.  20:  4. 
This  would  seduce  the  people  to  idolatry  by  Divine 
appointment,  the  same  thing  that  Manasseh  was  accused 
of  cloing— 2  Kings  21  :  15.  (4)  The  Tabernacle  would 
thus  contain  none  of  the  things  we  should  expect  to  find 
there  in  connection  with  the  Mosaic  System. 

Second  Modification  of  the  general  theory,  held  by  a 
few  Rabbins,  who  maintained  that  there  was  a  literal 
tabernacle  in  the  heavens  and  coi)ied  by  Moses. 

Third  Modification.— ll\vAl  the  Tabernacle  represented 
the  invisible  heavens.  1.  This  is  based  on  the  fact  that 
the  Scriptures  use  the  same  terms  in  reference  to  the 
Tabernacle  as  of  Heaven  ;  e.  g.,  "  God  dwelleth  in  both." 
2.  That  Solomon,  in  his  prayer,  (I Kings,  8  :  30)  asks  that 
God  would  heiir  in  heaven,  &c.,  when  they  prayed  toward 
the  temple.  3.  That  this  view  has  the  authority  of  the 
K  T.  Heb.  9  :  24  ;   9 :  11  ;  8  :  2 ;   6  :  20. 

Against  this  we  say  :  The  apostle  does  establish  a 
relationship  between  the  Tabernacle  and  Heaven,  but 
not  that  of  a  symbol  but  of  a  type.  What  was  done  by 
the  priest  in  the  Tabernacle  was  typical  of  what  Christ 
does  in  Heaven. 

As  to  the  other  arguments  :  God  did  dwell  in  the 
Tabernacle  and  in  Heaven  ;  but  the  Tabernacle  was  not 
the  symbol  of  Heaven.  He  manifested  himself  in  both, 
but  in  different  ways.  One  was  the  abode  of  his  conde- 
scension as  the  God  of  Israel,  the  other  the  nbode  of  his 
glory  as  the  God  of  the  Universe. 


/ 


e» 


35 

/r 

The  true  nieaning  is  shown  by  the  difibrent  ex-'' 
pressions  used  in  reference  to  it.  It  is  called  the  tent  or 
tabernacle  and  house  of  God ;  the  valace  or  temple,  (1  Sam. 
1  :  9)  the  dwelling  place  of  God..  I  These  names  suggest  the 
idea  of  earthly  residence.  God  is  not  a  God  afar  off,  but 
near  at  hand. :^  The  design  was  expressly  declared  by 
God  himself  (Ex.  25  :  8)  as  the  place  where  he  would  dwell. 
God  was  there,  and  there  spoke  and  manifested  his  pres- 
ence. The  people  went  up  there  to  meet  him  and  address 

him. 

^     The    character    of     the    symbol    itself :    The    house 
was  designed  for  God,   and  placed  in  the  centre   of  his 
camp.     The  several  families  of  the  Levites  encamped  near 
it,  and  three  tribes  on  each  side.    It  was  set  by  the  points 
of  the  compass,  fronting  the  East,  showing  it  to  be  set  for 
the  whole  earth.     His    kingdom   was   to   control   all  the 
earth  ;  to  correct  the  idea  that  the  Jews  were  the  exclu- 
sive favorites  of  heaven^  This  general  idea  of  God  dwell- 
ing on  the  earth  is  further  specified  (Ex.  27  ;  21)=the  Tab- 
ernacle of  the  congregation,  which  reads  in  Hebrew,=:the 
Tent  of  mQQ\:u\<i—i\'meetmg  place  for  two  parties—Ex.  29  : 
42-43.     "  Where  I  will   meet  yuu."— Ex.  25  :  22.     The 
purpose  of  the  meeting  was — the    Tabernacle   of  Testi- 
mony or    Witness.     See  Num.  9  :  15  ;  18  :  2.     God  gave 
to    Moses   tables   of  testimony— Ex.    31:    18;    25:   16; 
Deut     31  :  26.      God's   commandments   are  called  testi- 
mony, because  they  testify  God's  will  to  men.  This  is  the 
Tabernacle  of  testimony  because  it  is  the  place  where  his 
will    is   made    known,  tj' The    purpose    for   which  God 
meets  his  people  is  shown  in  the  name  Sanctiiury  and  also 
in    the  special  names  Holy  Place  and  Holy  of  Holies. 
Called  Sanctuary  not  because  set  apart  for  sacred  duties  ; 
still  less  in  the  sense  of  "  asylum,  "   which  is  a  heathen 
idea— These  ideas  are  subordinate.      But  it  did  signify 
inward  moral  purity,  the  place  where  boliness  is  required 
and  imparted.     Lev.  21 :  23.     The  ful    idea  then  is-The 
place  where  God  dwells  with  his  people  m  order  to  testify 
his  will  and  thus  to  sanctify  them. 

Examination  of  its  structure  and  meaning  of  its  parts. 

1.  The  Tabernacle  proper,  v«oc. 

2.  The  Court,  lepov. 


36 

The  Tabernacle  was  in  the  strict  sense  the  House  of 
God.  The  Court  was  not  strictly  so.  Beyond  the  outer 
veil,  the  people  could  not  pass,  only  the  representatives 
of  the  people,  the  priests,  could  do  so.  The  Tabernacle 
proper  was  divided  by  another  veil — not  bj^  solid  wall, 
indicating  a  permanent  division.  The  veil  formed  an 
impassable  barrier  for  the  time  to  all  but  the  High  Priest. 
It  was  rent  and  access  open  to  all  at  the  crucifixion. 
The  veil  divided  the  Tabernacle  into  two  unequal  depart- 
ments. 1.  The  Holy  Place  into  which  the  Priests  could 
all  come.  2.  Holy  of  Holies  into  which  the  High  Priest 
could  go,  and  he  onlj^  on  the  great  day  of  atonement. 

The  three  stages  of  approach. 

1.  The  Court  opened  to  the  people. 

2.  The  Hoi}'  Place  opened  to  the  priests. 

3.  The  Holy  of  Holies  opened  to  the  High  Priest 
once  a  year. 

These  representatives  secured  access  and  showed  that 
free  entrance  w^as  only  temporarily  withheld.  The  gifts 
of  the  people  could  be  taken  in  by  the  priests.  The 
symbols  of  the  people  were  in  the  H0I3'  Place.  These 
symbols   showed   that  in   time  they  might  enter  there. 

The  articles  in  the  Holy  of  Holies  signified  God's 
relation  to  his  people.  Those  in  the  Holy  Place  signified 
the  relation  of  the  people  to  God.  - 


LECTURE  n. 

Description  of  the  Ark. 

It  was  a  wooden  chest,  overlaid  with  gold,  containing 
the  two  tables  of  the  Law.  The  cover  was  a  solid  slab 
of  gold  on  which  the  two  cherubim  beaten  from  the  same 
slab. 

Two    EXPLAXATIONS. 

First. — Based  on  the  term  "  Ark  of  the  testimony." 
Deut.  31 :  26.  The  bookoftheLawis  here  called  a  witness. 
Now  it  is  said  that  this  "  book  of  the  Law  "  is  just  an 
expansion  of,  or  commentary  upon  the  tables  of  the  Law 


37 

as  delivered  upon  Mount  Sinai.  The  book  was  put  in  the 
side  of  the  ark  and  this  reveals  the  purpose  why  the 
tables  were  put  in  the  Ark.  The  "  Tables  of  testimony  " 
were  so  called  because  they  are  the  testimony  aofainst 
the  sins  of  the  people.  They  say  that  the  golden  Mercy- 
seat  covers  up  this  testimony  of  the  sins  of  the  people; 
and  that  the  Hebrew  word  signifies  this.  This  is 
defective. 

(a)  When  God  pardons  the  sins  of  the  people,  he  cov- 
ers their  guilt  or  sin  but  not  the  Law.  The  Law  is  not 
silenced  but  satisfied.  Paul  teaches  that  believers  are  free 
from  the  Law,  but  this  is  a  IN'ew  Testament  declaration. 

(b)  The  analogy  of  the  book  of  the  Law  being  put  in 
the  side  of  the  Ark  is  against  the  case  which  it  was 
drawn  to  adduce.  The  Books  should  have  been  put 
where  the  tables  were,  on  this  hypothesis. 

(c)  The  name  mercy-seat  (Kapporeth)  does  not  mean 
cover  or  lid,  as  ^iven  by  Gesenius.  There  is  a  Daghesh 
forte  in  the  Pe,  showing  that  the  Piel\^  meant,  signifying 
to  propitiate  or  forgive  sin.  It  was  the  place  where  the 
High  Priest  made  expiation. 

^Second  Explanation.— The  true  view  is  this :  ihe 
tables  of  the  Law  were  God's  covenant  with  Israel  and 
therefore  their  most  sacred  treasure,  kept  in  the  Ark  as 
a  place  of  safety.  The  Golden  Mercy-seat  represents  the 
Throne  of  God.  God's  mercy  is  based  on  his  immutable 
Law  It  was  golden,  to  show  tlie  perfection  and  beauty 
of  that  mercy.  Above  the  Mercy-seat,  between  the 
Cherubim,  was  the  Sliekinah,  God's  manifested  glory. 
The  cloud  betokened  his  presence.  From  hence  he 
spoke  with  xMoses,Ex.  25:  22.  Hence  God  is  said  to 
dwell  between  the  Cherubim.  He  occupied  this  throne 
not  for  wrath  or  vengeance,  but  for  mercy.  It  was  the 
Mercv-seat  to  represent  the  presentation  and  acceptance 
of  the  blood  of  sacrifice.  The  Cherubim  were  composite 
fio-ures,  (Ex.  25  :  20)  having  the  face  of  a  man  and  wings 
Ez  1-  5  •  10  •  20.  The  Cherubim  ^ire  described,  but  not 
exactly  the  same  as  in  Exodus-Man  Lion  Ox,  Eagle. 
Shows  the  concentration  in  one  of  all  the  highest  and  nob- 
lest qualities  in  creation.  The  quintessence  of  ^^I'eation. 
adorino-  and  surrounding  the  throne  of  God.    Such  com- 


38 

pound  figures  were  familiar  to  the  people  of  Assyria  and 
Egypt,  where  Moses  and  Ezekiel  lived.  The  Sphinx  of 
Egypt  consisted  of  the  body  of  a  lion  and  head  of  a  man. 
The  Eagle  was  the  king  of  birds;  the  Lion^  the  king  of 
beasts  ;  the  Ox,  the  chief  of  domestic  animals;  the  Man, 
the  highest  of  intelligent  creation.  The  combination  of 
these  brings  together  the  most  noble  of  the  animate  crea- 
tion. It  is  the  entire  animate  creation  condensed  ;  the 
ideal  embodiment  of  creation,  and  sets  forth  the  noblest 
beings  God  has  made.  These  were  not  actual  represen- 
tations, for  the  descriptions  vary  in  different  parts  of 
Scripture.  In  Isaiah  6th,  six  v/ings  are  mentioned  ;  Ez. 
1  :  6,  four  faces  and  fouc  wings  ;  Ez.  41  :  18,  every 
cherub  had  two  faces;  Rev.  4 :  7-8 — six  wings.  Each 
beast  represented  one  of  the  elements  which  constituted 
the  Cherubim.  These  variations  in  form,  while  the  gen- 
eral character  remains  the  same,  show  that  they "^ are 
symbols  and  not  exact  images. 

This   appears  first    from  other  parts  of  Scripture.   (1) 
Gen.  3:  24,  where  first  mentioned.     (2)  They  are  com- 
monly represented  as  being  in  the  immediate  presence 
of  God— Isaiah   6  ;    Ezekiel   1 ;  Ezekiel  10  ;    Rev.  4:6; 
Psalms  18  :  10.     (3)  In  the  Mosaic  Ritual  they  are  at  the 
ends  of  the  Mercy-seat,  and  therefore  near  the  Throne 
of  God.     The  curtains    were  wrought  with    Cherubim. 
Ex.  26:1.     So  also   the   Veil— Ex"  26:  31.      The   High 
Priest  could  enter  the  Holy  of  Holies  once  a  year,  but  the 
Cherubim  remained  there  continually.     So  of  the  priests 
in  the  Holy  Place  and  the  Cherubim  there.     (4)  The  lan- 
guage of  Peter,  (1  Peter  1:  12)  contains  an  allusion  sup- 
posed to  refer  to  the  posture  of  the  Cherubim,  with  their 
faces  toward  the  Ark.     Therefore  the  Clim:iiimii   repre- 
sented the  Angels,  the  highest  order  of  created  beings. 
The  pure  goltf  represented  their    purjty    and^  extreme 
•;  value.     In"  Rev.  5  :   8-14,  the  beasts  are  represented  as 
/  leading  the  praises  of  the  universe.     They  were  one  piece 
I  with  the  Mercy-seat,  therefore  they  are  a  part  of  God's 
^   throne,  the   ground   of  his  dominion.     They    were  two 
!   in  number,  in   order  to  show,  perhaps,  that  they  were 
not  a  representation  of  God  himself.     The  Holy  of  Holies 
was  a  perfect  cube.     The  New  Jerusalem  mentioned  in 

J  6  C^ycfT 


39 

Revelation,  was  also  a  perfect  cube,  wliich  indicated  per- 
fectiojK  The  Holy  of  Holies  had  no  artificial  li^^ht.  The 
~Sliekinah  was  the  only  light.  Tlie  New  Jerusalem 
needed  no  light,  for  God  was  the  light.  . 

Was  the  Shekinah  permanent  ? — Ex.  40  :  35.  (1)  Some 
say  that  the  brilliancy  was  confined  to  the  times  when  it 
is  mentioned.  (2)  Tradition  says  that  it  was  continued 
down  to  the  time  of  the  Babylonish  captivity,  and  this 
was  one  reason  why  the  latter  temple  was  inferior  to  the 
first.  Lev.  16:  2,  implies  that  the  Shekinah  was  there. 
Others  think  that  the  cloud  meant  the  cloud  of  incens.e. 


LECTURE  HI. 

The  Holy  Place  contained  (1)  the  Altar  of  Incense,  (2) 
the  TahU  of  Shew  Bread,  and  (3)  the  Candlestick. 

There  are  two  directly  opposite  interpretations  to 
these  symbols.  .■   ■Cv*'^'-'   ' 

I.  That  of  Baehr.  /  As  these  were  in  God's  house,  he 
supposes  that  they  represented  something  belonging 
to  or  proceeding  from  God  himself  The  table  was  merely 
to  receive  the  bread.  The  Shew  Bread,  (Lehem  Happanim) 
or  the  bread  of  the  face,  of  the  Divine  face,  according  to 
Baehr.  The  Bread  of  God  which  he  provides  for  his  peo- 
ple ;  twelve  loaves,  (Lev.  24  :  5)  one  for  each  tribfe.  It  was 
removed  every  Sabbath,  and  what  was  taken  away  was 
eaten  by  the  priests  as  the  representatives  of  the  people. 
Baehr  says  it  represented  the  Bread  of  Life,  "  of  which  if 
a  man  eat,  he  shall  live  forever." 

The  Candlestick  was  for  the  sake  of  the  light  which  it 
was  to  shed.  Baehr  says  it  is  the  light  which  God  dis- 
penses to  his  people.  The  seven  branches  denoted  the 
perfection  of  the  light— Rev.  4:5;  Psalms  12  :  6.  Accord- 
ing to  Baehr,  it  was  the  centre  and  seat  of  spiritual  light 
and  life.  These  two  articles  one  on  the  north  and  the 
other  on  the  south  side,  stand  in  relation  to  the  third  arti- 
cle placed  between  them  directly  in  front  of  the  ark,  and 
separated  from  it  only  by  a  veil,  i.  e.  the  Mar  of  Incense.^ 
Baehr  assumes  that  the  incense  means  the  diffusion  of 


40 

the  Name  of  God,  i.  e.  God  as  he  is  revealed,  or  his  Spirit, 
himself  veiled  from  sight  but  made  known  by  the  Spirit. 
The  light  and  ?z/e-giving  Spirit.  Hence  the  meaning  of 
the  Shew  Bread  and  Candlestick.  Heiice  the  Holy  Place 
is  the  place  where  the  Spirit  is  diffused  as  th(j  source  of 
spiritual  life  and  light.  This  opinion  is  erroneous  and  at 
variance  with  Scripture.  These  articles  represented  what 
belonged  to  God,  but  not  necessarily  what  proceeded  from 
God.  The  furniture  of  the  Holy  Place  represented  what 
the  people  are  to  do  in  reference  to  God.  The  Incense 
j\vas  the  symbol  of  worship  and  prayer. — Psalms  141  :  2; 
lev.  5:8-8:3-4;  Luke  1:10;  Is'um.  16 :  46.  It  represented 
the  intercession  of  the  High  Priest.— -Lev.  1 :  16  ;  7  :  9. 
To  burn  incense  was  to  offer  worship.^  It  is  often  men- 
tioned also  in  heathen  worship.  There  is  no  symbol 
about  which  there  is  less  difference  of  opinion. 

The  Candlestick  is  explained  in  Scripture — Rev.  1  :  12- 
20;  Zech.  4.  It  was  a  symbol  of  the  church  or  people  of 
God.  "Ye  are  the  light  of  the  world.  Let  your  light 
so  shine,"  &c.  The  lamps  were  fed  with  oil,  which  is  a 
symbol  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  was  used  in  anointing 
Priests  and  Kings  to  signify  the  gift  of  needed  blessings. 
Referred  to  in  1  John  2  :  27.  The.Qil_in  lamps  represented 
the  Holy  Spirit  given  to  the  church  as  the  source  of 
their  knowledge,  holiness  and  joy. 

The  Table  of  Shew  Breads  represented  what  the  peo- 
ple of  God  are  expected  to  do.  Service  to  be  rendered  ;  — 
Lev.  24 :  8,  9.  The  Bread  was  not  from  God  but  to  him 
from  the  people.  12  loaves==l  for  each  tribe.  So  each  tribe 
had  a  share  in  the  offering.  Bread  is  the  fruit  of  labor 
and  toil,  and  represented  so  much  labor  done  for  God. 
It  also  represented  their  means  of  subsistence.  It  de- 
noted that  their  lives  and  property  were  consecrated  to 
God.  It  denoted  the  devotion  of  their  activity  to  God's 
service.  Symbol  of  good  works.  Hence  incense  was 
placed  upon  it,  (Lev.  24  :  7)  to  denote  the  union  of  prayer 
and  good  works.  The  Bread  was  renewed  every  Sab- 
bath, showing  that  good  works  are  to  be  perpetual.  None 
could  eat  it  but  the  priests.  This  shows  that  they  who 
work  for  God  are  fed  from  his  table.  David  ate  of  it 
when  in  need,  hence  we  see  that  the  outward  ceremony 
gave  way  to  a  case  of  necessity. 


r 


£c/ 


'J 


rn^ 


a: 


■   .p^l 


M 


o 


ri  ^ 


-1-^       C  tay^, 


r^J^ 


Mj 


? 


?T'* 


J- 


J 


^^  O-'^'^ 


41 

Have  these  articles  of  furniture  any  siguiticaiice  in 
themselves  ? 

1.  Some  say  not:— that  they  are  only  instrumental 
and  have  no  inherent  meanino^,  hence  are  not  symbolic. 
This  theory  is  not  true  for  we  know  that  the  Candlestick 
was  a  symbol  of  the  church. 

2.  Some  say  that  the  Altar  and  Table  were  symbols 
per  se,  as  the  Candlestick  and  the  Altar  represented 
the  Church  as  the  offerer  of  prayer,  and  the  Table  rep- 
resented the  Church  as  the  bearer  of  good  works.  This 
is  not  conclusive  for  : 

(a.)  Although  the  Candlestick  is  a  symbol,  there  is  no 
such  declaration  as  to  the  Table  and  the  Altar. 

(b)  The  Altar  cannot  be  symbolical  of  the  church, 
because  it  must  always  have  the  same  meaning  and  this 
would  not  apply  to  the  Altar  of  Burnt  Offering  in  the 
Court.  It  would  not  explain  ihe  horns  of  the  altar  and 
the  atonemeyit. 

(c)  There  was  nothing  in  the  construction  of  the  Table 
or  Altar  to  fit  them  for  such  symbolism,  biit  in  the  Candle- 
stick there  was. 

(d)  There  was  a  radical  difference  in  their  character. 
The  Candlestick  was  an  agent  in  producing  light;  the 
Altar  and  the  Table  were  not  agents  in  producing  incense 
and  bread  and  therefore  cannot  represent  the  church  as 
the  offerer  and  performer.  They  only  receive  what  is 
prepared  elsewhere.  They  were  but  vessels.  The  Bread 
on  the  table  becomes  the  offering,  and  the  incense  on  the 
altar.  The  table  is  thus  a  modified  altar.  Simply  the 
place  to  which  the  offering  is  brought.  The  candlestick 
is  not  merely  a  place  on  which  oil  is  poured  but  where 
light  is  produced.  It  is  an  instrument  which,  by  the  infu- 
sion of  oil  and  fire,  gives  light.  As  to  its  form  and  material. 
The  Candlestick  was  made  of  gold  to  indicate  its  purity — 
branching  and  with  buds  to  indicate  that  the  church  is 
spreading,  living,  thriving  and  fruitful.  The  symbols  of 
the  Holy  Place  therefore  represent  the  ofi'erings  of  God's 
people,  prayer  and  good  works. 

^The  Fcirniture  of  the  Court  : 
-f-    H-*-The  Brazen  Altar  and  Laver. 

"^1.  Altar.  This  was  for  sacrifice  and  was  called  brazen 
from  its  hollow  frame   of  boards  overlaid  with  brass  or 


1^ 


Maajl     Y- 


t^f 


r-%^ 


9f  ^(>t^6u<^ 


42 


^^ 


v^- 


\/ 


rather  bronze.  Ex.  22:  1-8.  The  Altar  itself  was  made  of 
earth  and  stones.  Ex.  20  :  24,  25.  This  shows  that  the  altar 
was  not  a  human  structure  in  its  conception,  but  an  ascent 
toward  heaven,  signifying  drawing  near  to  God.  Thus 
^oah  sacrificed  on  Mt.  Ararat;  Abraham  on  Mt.  Moriah; 
Moses  and  Aaron  communed  with  God  on  top  of  Mt. 
Sinai.  Ex.  24  :  |9.  There  was  a  tendency  to  worship 
God  on  the  tops  of  mountains  and  high  hills  and  in  groves, 
whose  silence  denoted  solemnity.  Gen.  21  :  3S  Other 
nations  had  this  idea.  Mt.  Olympus  in  Greece  was  the 
abode  of  their  Gods.  An  altar  represented  a  mountain 
in  miniature,  an  ascent  toward  heaven,  and  God  comes 
down  to  meet  the  offerer  there.  When  the  Greeks  offered 
to  the  Gods  of  the  lower  world,  they  offered  in  trenches. 
The  word  altar  in  the  Heb.  MiZBEHA^^=to  lift  up.  Altar 
from  alUm  high — Greek  ^^fia  from  ^aivco.  Ex.  20  :  24. 
There  was  such  a  place  to  meet  God  in  each  division  of 
the  Tabernacle.  In  the  Conrt,  the  Altar  of  Burnt  Offer- 
ing ;  in  the  Holy  Place,  the  Altar  of  Incense;  and  the 
Mercy-seat  in  the  Holy  of  Holies.  The  divine  presence 
was  to  be  met  in  each,  and  expiation  and  forgiveness 
given  in  each  of  these  places.  This  rendered  the  Taber- 
nacle the  house  of  meeting  and  entitled  it  to  the  name 
of  the  House  of  God.  (2.)  The  iai^er,— Ex.  30  :  18.  It  is 
less  minutely  described  than  any  other  article  in  the  Taber- 
nacle. It  was  for  Aaron  and  his  sons  to  wash  in,  when  they 
went  into  the  Tabernacle  or  approached  the  Altar, — Ex. 
80  :  19-21.  This  symbolized  the  need  of  purity.  The 
hands  doing  God's  will  and  the  feet  treading  on  sacred 
ground.  Moses  at  the  burning  bush,  and  Joshua  in  the 
presence  of  the  captain  of  the  Lord's  host,  were  directed  to 
loose  their  shoes  from  off  their  feet.  The  Laver^  (Ex. 
38  :  8)  was  made  of  the  looking-glasses  or  metallic  mir- 
rors of  the  women.  These  mirrors  were  converted  into 
instruments  of  cleansing  and  this  was  an  instance  of  con- 
secrating what  was  secular  to  sacred  ends. 

LECTURE  lY. 


.7  'j  n 


^'j  U-t 


^Sacrifices.  There  are  two  classes  of  sacred  actions, 
offerings  and  purifications.  Offerings  were  the  most 
sacred  and  could  be  performed   only  at  the  Sanctuary. 


M 


a 


(^  CU 


u 


I 

i  '  '  ' 


.V    ^. 


/ 


•Alt  ^-^'tt.  t.    <    ■       .'0    '    ,    f>      / 

5'^  '^    ^  C  r-.^^^  lu^    4-...  .    -   - 


■<f^-^ 


<      '      .  43 

Purification  could  be  performed  anywhere.  The  word 
oflering  =  KARBA^'pow^oov==gift.  This  word,  used  also 
in  Mark  7  :  11,  denotes  anything  brought  near  to  God, 
and  hence  includes  what  was  brought  to  adorn  the 
Sanctuary  and  to  maintain  the  Priests. 

1.  Gifts  for  the  House  of  God. 

2.  "         ''        Ministers  of  God. 

3.  ''         ''         God  himself=:offerings.  "  -S-^  ^"• 
Those    designed    for    the    Altar,    are:    (a.)   Animal 

or  bloody,  (b.)  Vegetable  or  bloodless.  The  first  con- 
sisted of  oxen,  sheep  and  goats  and  in  cases  of  extreme 
poverty,  doves  and  pigeons.  The  second  consisted  of 
grain  and  flour,  oil  and  wine,  bread  or  cakes.  Salt  and 
incense  were  added  as  an  accompaniment  but  were  not  a 
part  of  the  offering.  Honey  and  leaven  were  expressly 
prohibited. 

Why  w^ere  these  particular  objects  offered?  The 
answer  depends  on  the  ideas  held  as  to  what  the  sacrifice 
represented. 

I.  Materialistic  Vieio.  That  it  w^as  intended  as  food  for 
the  deity.  These  were  given  him  because  the}'  were  the 
usual  articles  of  food,  which  he  needed  as  well  as  light 
and  shelter.  Answer — 1.  This  is  utterly  inconsistent 
with  the  character  of  God.  It  is  opposed  to  the  Spiriiu- 
ality  of  God,  which  was  constantly  taught.  Ps.  50  :  12-13. 
2.  The  principal  and  most  essential  element  of  the  sacri- 
fice was  blood,  and  this  was  expressly  prohibited  as  food. 

II.  Pecuniary  Vieio.  That  the  sacrifice  was  a  penalty 
or  fine  exacted  as  a  condition  of  pardon  ;  and  that  the 
material  offered  represented  their  wealth  and  property. 
Answer — 1.  The  prominence  given  to  blood  is  not 
explained  by  this.  2.  The  limitation  in  the  objects  offered 
is  not  explained,  Wh}^  w^ould  not  camels,  asses,  costly 
garments  and  furniture  answer  equally  well  ? 

III.  Exclusively  Typical  View.  That  the  sole  design 
was  to  prefigure  Christ  and  his  work,  and  the  materials 
selected  were  to  set  forth  his  personal  qualities  of  a. 
Redeemer,  or  his  oflicial  character,  or  the  nature  of  his 
work.  Answer — This  is  defective  for  :  (1.)  It  is  a  mis- 
take to  suppose  that  this  is  the  sole  object.  The  design 
of  types  is  to  set  forth  truths  and  not  to  delineate  objects. 


44 

(2.)  This  leads  to  far-fetched  explanations  and  analogies. 
If  a  lamb  was  sacrificed  to  represent  Christ,  wh}^  not  a 
Lion,  since  he  was  called  the  Lion  of  the  tribe  of  Judah? 
Why  were  bulls  and  goats  sacrificed,  since  they  are  repre- 
sented in  the  Scriptures  as  enemies,  (Ps.  22  :  12  and  Matt. 
25  :  3)  and  why  not  the  roe  and  hart.  Canticles  2:17? 

What  particular  qualities  were  each  designed  to  rep- 
resent ?  Why  were  different  animals  offered,  and  why 
of  different  age  and  sex?  Why  sacrificed  at  different 
times?  Why  grain,  and  why  so  prepared?  Some  say 
that  the  fine  flour  represented  Christ's  sufferings  from 
the  fact  of  its  being  ground  ;  and  cakes,  because  they  were 
prepared  by  fire.  (3.)  These  allusions  would  have  been 
utterly  unintelligible  to  the  Jews,  and  thus  the  types 
would  have  failed  of  their  object. 

IV.  Spiritualistic  Vieic.  That  the  sacrifice  represented 
the  inward  spiritual  transaction  of  the  offerer.  The  ani- 
mal represented  the  offerer.  The  death  of  the  animal 
represented  his  death  for  sin.  The  presentation  of  blood 
represented  the  consecration  of  his  life  to  God,  hence 
those  objects  are  proper  to  be  offered  which  best  serve 
as  symbols  of  the  offerer. 

Answer — (1.)  A  sacrifice  would  then  signify  an  inward 
change  of  heart  but  no  atonement  for  sin.  Lev.  I:  4. 
(2.)  There  is  no  foundation  in  Scripture  for  the  assump- 
tion that  the  sacrifice  represented  the  offerer  himself 
It  symbolized  not  a  sinner  but  a  sinless  being.  The 
heathen  offerings  vary  according  to  the  divinity  and  not 
according  to  the  offerer.  The  animal  was  not  chosen  as 
a  representative  of  man,  but  as  one  acceptable  to  the 
divinity.  (3.)  The  thing  to  be  represented  is  forgiveness 
and  purification.  This,  the  sacrifice  of  the  animal  could 
not  teach.  There  is  nothing  to  suggest  a  return  to 
spiritual  life.  The  animal  remains  dead,  unlike  the  case 
of  the  purification  of  the  leper.     Lev.  14:  49-53. 

V.  The  True  Vieio.  That  the  offerings  were  to  set 
forth  (a)  Expiation  for  sin,  and  (b)  Consecration  to  God;= 
a  vicarious  atonement  and  an  oblation  to  God.  The  ani- 
mal sacrifices  showed  both,  the  vegetable  only  the  latter. 
The  victim  is  not  a  symbol  of  the  offerer,  but  a  substi- 
tute. The  substitute  is  slain  ;  showing  that  the  forfeited 
life  has  been  taken.     The  aroruments  in  favor  of  this  : 


(^ 


7. 


C:: 


J 


/ 


b. 


-2. 


45 

1.  This  is  the  old  traditional  viein. 

2.  This  will  exphiiii  all  forms  of  the  service. 

3.  This  is  in  accordance  with  scripture. 

4.  This  is  conformable  to  the  design  of  Christ's  death. 

5.  This  presents  the  most  satisfactory  explanation  for 
the  limitation  of  animals  in  the  sacrifice.     An  oblation 

(1.)  Must  be  his  own  possession. 

(2.)  The  product  of  his  toil.  This  excludes  sponta- 
neous productions,  and  fruits  and  wild  animals. 

(3.)  It  should  be  his  food  by  which  his  life  is  sus- 
tained, as  a  pledge  of  his  life  being  consecrated  to 
God.     This  excludes  what  may  be  raised  for  show,  &c. 

A  Substiiuie  must  be  (1.)  an  animal  having  a  life  to 
give.  Lev.  5 :  11  is  the  only  exception,  and  it  proves  the 
rule.  (2.)  This  life  must  be  a  sinless  life,  not  only  nega- 
tively but  positively,  at  least  in  a  symbolic  and  cere- 
monial sense, '<^his  last  consideration  excludes  human 
/sacrifice.  f^Yet  a  substitute  should  possess  a  com- 
munity of  nature  with  the  offerer,  hence  the  use  of  domes- 
tic animals  as  beins^  most  closely  allied  to  man. 


LECTURE  V. 

Meaning  of  the  acts  included  in  the  Animal  Sacrifice, 
Lev.  1  :  1-9.  After  the  presentation  of  the  victim  at 
the  Tabernacle  the  sacrificial  service  included  :  1.  Laying 
on  of  hands.  2.  Killing  the  victim.  3.  Sprinkling  the 
blood.  4.  Burning  the  animal  either  whole  or  in  part. 
Besides  these  there  were,  5.  Pecuniary  compensation 
in  the  trespass  offering,  and  6.  A  sacrificial  feast  in  the 
peace  offering.  The  first  four  were  common  to  all  sac- 
rifices. 

I.  Laying  on  of  hands,  Lev.  1 :  4.  The  offerer  put 
his  hand  on  "the  head  of  the  animal.  The  imposition  of 
hands  is  always  employed  in  Scripture  to  denote  the 
impartation  of  something  by  a  person  authorized  or 
qualified  to  do  so. 

(1)  Giving  Blessing.  Gen.  48:  13,  14;  Matt.  19: 
12-15. 

(2)  Giving  Holy  Ghost.     Acts  8 :  17-18;  19:  6. 


46 

(3)  Conferri7ig    Office.      Deut.    34  :  9  ;    J^um.    8  :  4^  /^ 
Acts  6:6;  I.  Tim.  4:  14. 

(4)  Impartaiion  of  Miraculous  Virtue.  Matth.  9  :  18 ; 
Mark.  6 :  5. 

(5)  Witnesses  laid  hands  on  a  blasphemer^ s  head.  Lev. 
24  :  14. 

This  ceremony  always  denotes  the  impartation  of 
something,  and  refutes  all  views  in  which  this  element  is 
not  found. 

First  View.  Philo  says  that  it  is  an  exhibition  of  the 
hands  of  the  offerer,  and  denotes  his  innocence.  This 
is  not  true,  for  a  different  ceremony  would  have  been 
more  appropriate,  such  as  the  washing  of  hands.  E.  g. 
Pilate. 

Second  Vieiv.  That  it  designated  the  animal  as  the 
property  of  the  offerer,  corresponding  to  the  Roman 
ceremony  of  manumission  of  slaves,  and  his  consecration 
of  it  to  God.  But  both  these  ideas  were  shown  suffi- 
ciently by  the  act  of  bringing  the  animal  to  the  Sanctuary. 

Third  View.  That  it  was  a  solemn  consecration  of  the 
victim,  but  if  so,  the  priest,  and  not  the  offerer,  would 
have  laid  his  hand  upon  it. 

Fourth  and  true  View.  It  can  only  mean  that  the 
guilt  of  the  offerer  is  transferred  to  the  victim — not  his 
moral  character,  but  his  liability  to  punishment.  This 
appears  : 

(1.)  From  express  explanation  ^>r  this  ceremony  in  Lev. 
16  :  21.  ''2.)  It  may  be  inferred  from  the  position  which 
the  laying  on  of  hands  holds  in  the  sacrificial  service. 
It  occurs  in  all  animal  sacrifices,  except  that  of  doves,  and 
never  in  the  vegetable  offerings.  This  shows  that  it 
must  be  related  to  something  peculiar  to  the  animal  sac- 
rifice, i.  e.,  the  atonement.  This  act  is  done  by  the  offerer, 
and  not  by  the  priest,  and  therefore  indicates  something 
connected  with  himself.  It  also  follows  the  presentation 
of  the  victim  and  immediately  precedes  the  slaughter. 
The  effect  of  imposition  of  hands  is  to  qualify  the  victim 
to  make  atonement  for  the  sin  of  the  offerer.  Lev.  1  :  4. 
(3.)  This  is  the  ancient,  traditional,  and  commonly 
received  explanation. 

Some  recent  interpreters  have  made  a  distinction 
in  thfe   signification    of  this  ceremony  in   the   different 


t 


>Jk.A.  *.-<*  e/.d 


0  ' 


'VV'^ 


;t^ 


/^- 


>>o<2>u#K^ 


"/•JO.  ^      /  ■ 

7  ^^ 


C 


/ 


Co 


^^^ 


l^-i^' 


I  /I 


47 

kinds  of  sacrifices.  Holding  that  in  the  sin-offering^  it 
denoted  a  transfer  of  the  guilt  of  the  otfereV,  but  in 
the  hurnt-offering  it  signified  the  desire  of  the  offerer 
to  be  consecrated  to  God.  In  the  peaee-offering  it 
denoted  gratitude  and  thankfulness  to  God.  Reply. 
(a.)  Although  the  ultimate  aim  is  dififerent  in  each,  the 
immediate  end  is  the  same  in  all,  i.  e.,  atonement  for 
sin.  (b.)  The  transfer  of  legal  relations  is  easily  compre- 
hended, but  we  cannot  conceive  of  a  transfer  of  the  emo- 
tions of  the  oflTerer.  (c.)  Lev.  i  :  4,  expressly  says  that 
the  acceptance  of  the  atonement  depends  on  the  laying 
on  of  hands  in  the  burnt-off'ering.  The  hands  were  laid 
on  the  head  not  for  convenience  sake,  but  because  the 
penalty  was  a  capital  one. 

II.  Slaying  of  the  Sacrifice.  The  infliction  of  the 
penalty.  It  showed  the  doctrine  of  substitution  which  is 
taught  in  Isaiah  53.      Various  vieivs. 

1.  Some  say  that  slaj-ing  here  means  only  renuncia- 
tion of  the  victim  and  surrender  of  it  to  God  on  the  part  of 
the  offerer.  The  death  rendering  it  useless  to  the  offerer. 
Complete  consecration  to  God.  This  falls  with  the  error 
on  which  it  is  based,  which  is  not  analogous  to  the  Roman 
custom  of  manumission. 

2.  Spiritualistic  View. — That  it  represented  the  dying 
of  a  sinful  nature  and  the  giving  up  of  a  worldly  life, 
and  obtaining  communion  with  God  by  presentation  at 
his  altar. 

Answer — (1.)  The  victim  was  not  a  symbol  of  the 
offerer,  but  a  sinless  substitute.  (2.)  The  life  of  the  ani- 
mal cannot  represent  a  sinful  life.  The  imputation  of 
sin  transfers  the  liability  to  punishment,  and  not  the 
moral  character.  Clirist  was  our  substitute,  but  did  not 
possess  our  sinful  nature.  (3.)  The  death  of  one  to  whoni 
sin  is  imputed  cannot  be  the  medium  of  bringing  the 
offerer  near  to  God,  except  as  being  a  substitute  for  him. 
(4.)  This  makes  inward  holiness  the  ground  of  pardon, 
and  sanctification  to  precede  justification.  The  death  of 
the  animal  here  means  that  the  offerer  thus  dies  unto 
sin,  whereas  his  sin  must  be  atoned  for  as  a  preliminary 
to  his  being  brought  into  communion  with  God. 


r-ti-^-<^^  ,  yi 


2  ;  ^  ^  7 


/Z         s5^^ 


'48 

3.  This  view  regards  the  slayincj  as  iiierel}^  an  iiidis- 
peusable  means  of  securing  the  blood  and  flesh,  and  has 
no  signification  in  or  of  itself. 

Answer — (1.)  The  slaying  of  the  victim  was  an 
integral  part  of  the  ritual,  prescribed  to  be  done  at  the 
Tabernacle  in  the  presence  of  the  priests,  &c.  (2.)  This 
is  tantamount  to  a  confession  that  it  is  the  penalty  of  the 
law  endured  in  the  offerer's  stead. 

4.  Penal  Vieiv. — It  has  been  objected  to  this  true  penal 
view,  (1)  that  the  victim  was  slain  by  the  offerer  and  not 
by  the  priest. 

Answer — (a.)  The  sinner  is  his  own  destroyer,  (b.) 
The  sinner  is  his  own  accuser  and  confessor,  (c.)  It  is 
typically  significant  of  Christ.  Doves  were  slain  b}^  the 
priests  because  of  the  scarcity  of  blood. 

Objection  (2.) — This  makes  the  slaying  of  more  conse- 
quence than  the  sprinkling.  Answer — (a.)  In  a  judicial 
view%  it  is  still  the  sprinkling  which  actually  effects  the 
expiation,  (b.)  The  slaj'ing  is  an  equally  essential  part  of 
the  ritual. 

III.  Sjjrinkling  of  the  Blood. — Different  Views. — 1. 
That  it  was  the  complement  to  the  act  of  slaying.  This 
is  not  so,  for  (a.)  The  blood  was  not  wasted  but  carefully 
gathered,  and  (b.)  It  was  brought  to  a  specified  place  and 
used  in  a  prescribed  way. 

2.  Sjjiritualistic  View. — That  the  bringing  of  the 
blood,  which  is  the  life,  to  the  altar,  represented  that  the 
life  of  the  offerer  shall  be  made  holy  and  sanctified.  An- 
swer—(a.)  According  to  Lev.  1 :  4  ;  7: 11,  the  blood  makes 
the  atonement  and  is  not  itself  atoned  for.  (b.)  It  is  dis- 
tinguished from  the  offerer  as  making  the  atonement  for 
him,  not  as  a  symbol  but  a  substitute. 

3.  The  blood  was  sprinkled  upon  the  sacred 
vessel s^because  they  were  regarded  as  defiled  by  the  sins 

A^ .  ol""tHe  people,    and  the  blood  covered  this  defilement. 

This  is  argued  from  Lev.  16  :  15-19.  Answer — (a.)  It 
would  be  more  natural  to  sprinkle  the  offerer  himself, 
who  was  the  sinner,  (b.)  A  separate  service  was  used  for 
the  atonement  of  the  Sanctuary  once  a  year,  but  not  in 
every  sacrifice.     'If,^  --rrjvd  £j 


-6 


49 

4.  True  View.— It  is  an  exhibition  at  the  altar  of  the 
blood  which  has  been  shed  tor  rhe  offerer,  and  repre- 
sents expiation  and  that  death  has  been  suffered.  The 
blood  was  sprinkled  (1)  on  the  Brazen  Altar;  (2)  at 
the  Golden  Altar  of  Incense  ;  (3)  at  the  Mercy  seat— at 
places  where  God  especially  met  with  his  people.  The 
fact  of  his  requiring  it  to ''be  placed  there,  denoted  his 
acceptance  of  it. 

IV.  Burning  of  the  Victim  at  the  Altar.  With  the 
sprinkling,  the  atonement  was  completed.  Now  comes 
the  oblation,  which  was  accomplished  by  burnino-  the 
victim.  This  was  common  to  the  animal  and  veo:etable 
offering.  Some  regarded  the  fire  as  the  wrath  o"f  God, 
showing  that  temporal  death  did  not  exhaust  the  penalty 
of  the  law,  but  that  the  vengeance  of  eternal  fire  should  fol- 
low. Answer— (a.)  Fire  may  be  regarded  as  a  purifier  as 
well  as  a  destroyer.  It  leaves  the  "earthly  portion  here 
and  carries  the  rest  heavenward,  (b.)  The  whole  penalty 
of  the  law  is  represented  by  the  death  of  the  victim, 
(c.)  This  burning  follows  the  sprinkling,  by  which  expia- 
tion has  been  already  effected,  (d.)  The  victim  is  said  to 
be  a  sweet  savor  unto  the  Lord. — Lev.  1  :  9.  (e.)  The 
bloodless  offering  was  also  burned  on  the  altar.  There 
was  no  sin  represented  in  these  offerings,  hence  the  sym- 
bol must  mean  the  same  in  both  cases.  The  fire  carnes 
the  sacrifice  to  God  relieved  from  all  earthly  dross.  It 
is  an  oblation  of  food  made  to  him— Lev.  21  :  6-8.  It  is 
a  tribute  returned  to  God  for  most  necessary  gifts — not 
to  absolve  from  further  consecration,  but  pledges  prop- 
erty, labor  and  life,  all  to  God.  Rom.  12:1;  Psalms  40  : 
6-8.  The  animal  was  skinned,  for  the  skin  was  not  used 
for  food,  and  the  flesh  washed,  so  that  the  ottering  might 
be  clean — free  from  defilement. 


LECTURE  VL 

Different  Kinds  of  Sacrifice. 

They  v;ere  not  first  instituted  by  Moses.     They  ex- 
isted from  the  earliest  Bible  History.     Moses  modified, 


50 

regulated  and  enlarged  them.  What  liad  been  left  to  the 
pleasure  of  the  offerer,  was  now  explicitly  determined  by 
Divine  statute.  Rigor,  precision  and  complexity  succeed 
simplicity,  &c.  This  was  progress.  The  elements  were 
separated  and  made  distinct  to  the  mind  of  the  offerer  with 
an  ultimate  reference  to  Christ.  The  Burnt-offering  was 
the  principal  form  in  the  Patriarchal  System.  Besides  this 
was  the  ''  Sacrifice ."  Gen.  46  :  1.  In  Ex.  10  :25,  this  is 
distingui-hed  from  the  burnt-otfering.  In  Gen.  31:  54, 
a  sacrificial  feast  formed  part  of  the  service.  This  must 
have  corresponded  to  the  Peace-otfering.  Vegetable- 
offering,  Gen.  4:3;  Drink-offer inq,  Gen.  35  :  14. — That 
these  were  not  distinct  offerings  in  former  times  appears 
from  Gen.  8  :  20,  where  Noah  offers  a  Burnt -offering.  The 
Mosaic  ritual  would  have  required  a  Peuce-o^Qvmg.  See 
also  Job  1  :  5 ;  42:  8.  ^wry^f-offerings  instead  of  Sin- 
offe  rings. 

There  were  two  ideas  in  the  Sacrifices  :  1.  Atonement 
— Expiation  by  sprinkling  of  blood.  2.  Oblation — Con- 
secration by  burning  on  the  altar.  The  Sin-offering 
emphasizes  Atonement.  The  Burnt-offering  emphasizes 
Oblation. 

There  were  two  other  offerings  :  3.  Trespass- offering, 
with  the  idea  of  satisfaction  by  pecuniary  compensation. 
4.  Pmc6^-offering,  with  the  idea  of  restored  communion 
with  God  by  n»eans  of  a  sacrificial  feast.  When  differ- 
ent kinds  of  sacrifices  are  to  be  offered  together  tbey  are 
invariably  named  in  order,  and  Sin-offering  always  pre- 
cedes Burnt-offering,  and  both  of  these  before  the  Peace- 
offering.  Ex.  29  :  14,  18,  2^  Judges  20 :  26  ;  Ez.  45  :  17. 
The  Sin  and  Trespass-offerings  were  designed  to  restore 
the  Theocratic  relations  with  God.  The  Burnt  and  Peace- 
offerings,  to  express  and  maintain  these  relations. 

I.  DlSTINCTIOX  BETWEEN  THE  SlN  AND  TRESPASS-OFFER- 
INGS. Various  Opinions. — 1.  That  there  was  no  real 
difference.  The  offerer  could  do  as  he  chose.  2.  That 
the  Sin-offering  was  for  sins  of  ignorance,  and  the  Tres- 
pass-offering for  venial  sins.  3.  That  the  Sin-offering  was 
for  sins  of  omission,  and  the  Trespess-offering  for  sins  of 
commission.  4.  That  the  Sin-offerings  were  for  sins  vol- 
untarily confessed,   and   the   Trespass-offerings  for   sins 


'{aa/J  L 


r    M/J  M- 


51 

proven  by  testimony.  5.  That  the  Sin-offering  was  for 
lighter  sins,  and  the  Trespass-offering  for  nio'i-e  serious 
offences. 

The  True  View.--VhiiX  the  Sin-offering  was  for  simple 
transgression  of  the  Law,  and  the  Trespass-offering  for 
trespass  or  injury  against  God  or  fellow-men,  for  wdiieh 
amends  must  be  made  together  with  one-fifth  in  arldition. 
The  Trespass-offering  was  also  required  in  cleansing  a 
leper,  because  he  must  make  amends  for  his  lack  of  service 
to  God  during  his  defilement.  Also  required  of  a  Nazarite 
who  had  a  special  vow,  and  had  contracted  ceremonial 
uncleanness  in  the  meantime.  The  ritual  of  these  two 
offerings  was  determined  by  their  character  and  design. 
The  animal  varied  according  to  the  theocratic  standfiig 
of  the  offerer,  in  the  Sin-offering.  For  the  sins  of  the 
entire  people,  or  of  the  High  Priest  as  the  representative 
of  the  people,  a  young  bullock  was  required.  For  an 
ordinary  ruler,  a  Ae-goat.  For  one  of  the  common  peo- 
ple, a. ^A^-goat  or  sheep.  For  the  poor,  two  doves  or  pigeons. 
For  extreme  poverty,  one-tenth  of  an  ephah  of  "flour.  '3  f^''' 
The  enormity  of  the  sin  was  aggravated  by  the  standing 
of  the  sinner.  This  gradation  is  peculiar  to  the  iSm-offer- 
ing.  In  the  Trespass-oW^vrng^  a  ram  was  required  in 
every  case,  because  the  damage  was  the  same,  irrespec- 
tive of  the  wealth  of  the  offerer.  The  ^SV/i-offering  was 
for  the  whole  people,  and  was  offered  at  the  'dmm'c\\  feasts , 
to  atone  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  people  in  the  interral. 
V^  J  -^o  Trespass-offering  was  required,  because  the  nature 
of  this  required  the  [tarticular  sin  to  be  made  known. 
Ordy  a  single  animal  was  offered  in  the  Sin  and  Trespass- 
offering.  There  was  an  indefinite  number  in  the  Burnt 
and  Peace-offerings.  Because  in  the  Sin  and  Trespass- 
offerings  the  expiation  for  sin  was  the  pure  act  of  God's 
grace,  and  not  to  be  purchased  by  the  number  of  the 
offerings.  In  the  Burnt  and  Peace-offerings,  which  rep- 
resented the  inward  devotion  of  the  heart,  and  there- 
fore could  be  intensified,  an  indefinite  number  of  vic- 
tims might  be  offered.  At  the  dedication  of  the  temple^ 
tens  and  hundreds  of  thousands  were  offered.  The  great 
idea  of  the  Trespass-offering  is  satisfaction  for  sin,  repa- 
ration for  damage   by  pecuniary  compensation.     In   the 


't- 


52 

Sin-offering,  the  prominence  is  given  to  the  sprinkling 
of  blood,  and  the  great  idea  is  expiation  for  sin.  The 
blood  was  brought  to  the  altar  in  every  sacrifice;  but  in 
the  others  it  was  sprinkled  round  about  the  altar,  while 
in    the    Sin-offering   a   greater   formality    was    required. 

(1.)  In  the  case  of  the  Mkfh^Prks^.  The  blood  was  taken 
by  the  Priest  on  his  finger,  and  smeared  on  the  horns  of 
the  altar;  these  were  the  vertices  or  culminating  points, 
the  idea  being  that  the  virtue  in  it  rose  to  its  maximum. 
The  rest  of  the  blood  was  poured  at  the  base  of  the  altar. 
See  Lev.  4  :  3-12. 

(2.)  In  the  case  of  the  sin  of  the  ivhole  people.  The 
blood  was  carried  into  tlie  Holy  Place  and  sprinkled 
seven  times  in  front  of  the  rail,  and  was  also  taken  on  the 
finger  of  the  Priest  and  put  on  the  horns  of  the  Golden 
Altar  of  Incense,  while  he  poured  the  rest  of  the  blood  at 
the  base  of  the  Altar  in  the  court.  Lev.  13  :  21,  On  the 
great  Day  of  Atonement,  tlie  Higli  Priest  took  the  blood  of 
the  sin-offering  and  sprinkled  it  upon  tlie  mercy-seat  in 
the  Holy  ()f  Holies. 

In  the  case  of  the  Sin  and  Trespass-offering,  the  fat 
only  was  to  burned  on  the  altar;  the  flesh  was  given  to 
the  Priests  to  be  eaten  in  the  court,  in  case  the  sacrifice 
was  for  a  layman  ;  but  if  for  the  priest  or  for  the  whole 
people,  it  was  to  be  burned  in  a  clean  place  without  the 
camp.     Lev.  6  :  25. 

Different  Explanations  of  this  rule. 

These  offerings  were  made  unholy  by  the  sin  imputed 
to  them  ;  therefore  the  flesh  could  not  be  burned  with 
acceptance  on  God's  altar,  but  must  be  consumed  in  some 
other  way,  either  outside  the  camp  or  be  eaten  by  the 
priests.  Tliis  symbolized  the  annihilation  of  the  sin 
which  had  been  imputed  to  it.  If  eaten,  it  was  sup- 
posed to  be  abs(,)rbed  in  the  holiness  of  the  priests.  If  the 
priest  was  the  sinner,  or  the  people,  then  the  holiness  re- 
quired to  consume  the  sin  was  lacking.  Hence  the  flesh 
must  be  burned.  In  support  of  this,  those  who  hold  it 
quote  Lev.  10:  17.  They  inferred  that  the  eating  of  the 
Sin-offering  by  Aaron  and  his  sons  was  equal  to  consum- 
ing the  sin  of  the  people.  This  is  not  necessarily  the 
meaning  of  the   passage.     That   this   view  is  not  correct 


53 

appears  from  Lev.  XQ  •  25  and  10  :  17.  The  flesh  is  there 
called  "most  holy,"  also  Lev.  6  :  26-29.  It  was  eaten 
only  in  the  Holy  Phice,  and  anythino:  it  touched  was  made 
holy  by  it.  It  must  be  washed  in  the  Holy  Place,  and  a 
brazen  pot  in  which  it  was  sodden  must  be  rinsed  and 
scoured,  and  an  earthen  vessel  was  to  be  broken.  The 
fat  was  burned  on  the  Altar.  This  would  not  have  been 
so,  if  there  were  any  defilement  in  the  animal  ;  nor  would 
the  priest  be  allowed  to  eat  defilement.  The  sin  had 
already  been  atoned  for,  by  the  si)rinkling  of  the  blood 
before  the  flesh  was  to  be  eaten.  The  burning  of  it  out- 
side the  camp,  in  a  clean  place  whither  the'ashes  had 
been  carried,  was  analogous  to  the  burning  of  what  was 
left  from  the  Passover  and  Peace-ofFering,  and  was  to 
preserve  it  from  decay  and  corruption.  The  priests  could 
not  eat  the  sacrifice  offered  for  themselves,  because  they 
could  not  profit  by  their  own  sins.  They  were  Grod's 
servants,  and  therefore  were  to  bo  ted  from  his  table. 

II.  Burnt-offering. — Emi)hasized  oblation  and  con- 
secration.     Its    characteristic   was    the    burning    of  the 
whole  eatable  portion  of  the  animal.     It  could  be  offered 
at  any  time,  and  was  the  most  frequent  of  the  offerings. 
The  other   offerings  were   for  special  occasions.     There 
was  a  regular  public  Burnt-offering  for  every  day,  con- 
sisting of  a  lamb  every  morning  and  evening.     The  fire 
was  never  allowed  to  go  out.     On  the  Sabbath,  the  daily 
Burnt-offering  was  doubled.     On  the  first  of  the  month 
there    was  a   larger  offering;   and   at  the  annual    feast, 
larger  still.     It  was  the  only  kind  of  offering  that  could 
be  offered  alone.     No  act  of  worship  was  acceptable  with- 
out the  consecration  which  the  burnt-offering  represented. 
Any  kind  o^  clean  animals  might  be  offered.     It  must  be 
without  blemish  and  a  male,  except  in  the  case  of  Doves, 
where  there  was  but  little  difference  in  the  size  of  the  two 
sexes,  (and  yet  the  7nasculme' suf^x  is  used  in  the  case  of 
Doves.)     In    the  Sin-ofifering,    where   gradation   was   re- 
quired, this  was  made  in    part  by  distinction  of  gender. 
Males  were  considered  higher  than  females.     The  female 
was  not  allowed  in  the  Burnt-offering  at  all.     Some  say 
that  the  male  represented  greater  strenuousness,  &c.,  on 
the  part  of  the  offerer,  to  God's  service.     But  difference 
in  size  is  the  most  plausible  explanation. 


54 

LECTURE  VII. 

III.  The  PEACE-OFrERiNG — To  express  and  ratify  peace 
with  God.  Its  characteristic  feature  was  a  feast^  which 
signified  peace  and  communion  with  God.  When  this 
Sacrifice  is  mentioned  in  a  series,  it  is  the  highest  and  Jast. 
Three  kinds  are  recognized. 

1.  Thankscjivingm  acknowledgement  of  some  benefit 
from  God,  or  for  God's  mercy  in  general. 

2.  Voids  in  fulfillment  of  pledges  previously  given. 

3.  Free-will  offering  of  the  inward,  spontaneous  im- 
pulse. 

Peace-ofterings  were   presented   for   benefits  desired, 
as  well  as  for  benefits  received.     Judges  20  :   26  ;   21 :  4  ;-; 
1  Sam.  13:  9;   2  Sam.  24:   25. 

Any  sacrificial  animal,  male  or  female  might  be  pre- 
sented, according  to  the  wish  of  the  ofierer.  It  could 
be  male  or  female.  Doves  and  pigeons  are  not  men- 
tioned, because  this  sacrifice  was  not  urgent,  and  so  the 
very  poor  did  not  need  to  ofier  at  all.  Moreover,  doves 
and  pigeons  would  have  been  unsuitable  for  the  sacrifi- 
cial feast  which  followed.  The  animal  must  be  without 
blemish.  Only  in  the  free-will  ottering  one  "  superfiuous 
or  lacking  in  its  parts  "  might  be  presented.  It  was  a 
spontaneous  gift,  so  an  animal  of  less  value  would  be 
accepted. 

The  disposition  of  the  flesh  was  peculiar  to  this  kind 
of  sacrifice.  The  fat  was  burned  on  the  altar.  The 
breast  and  right  (shoukhr  or)  ham  were  waved  or  heaved 
and  given  to  the  priests  ;  the  ham  to  the  friends  who 
ministered  in  this  particular  sacrifice,  and  the  breast 
to  the  priests  in  general. 

There  was  no  particular  meaning  in  them,  as  that  the 
breasts"  afiection,"  and  the  shoulder="  work."  These 
are  called  technically  the  wave  breast  and  heave  shoulder, 
because  of  the  consecration  by  waving  and  heaving. 
There  is  a  tradition  about  this  ceremony.  The  waving 
was  by  some  supposed  to  be  a  horizontal  motion  toward 
each  of  the  four  points  of  the  compass.  Others  think 
that  it  was  waved  forward,  toward  the  sanctuary,  and 
then  backward  again.     This,  they  say,  showed   it  to   be 


55 

given  to  God  and  then  God  gave  it  to  the  priests.  The 
heamng  was  the  raising  of  it  np  to  heaven  and  lowerino^ 
it  again. 

The  rest  of  the  flesh  was  given  to  the  offerer,  who, 
with  his  family  and  friends  and  some  needy  Levites,  ate 
it.  This  symbolized  communion  with  God  and  his  peo- 
ple. 

1.  The  Spiritualistic  Vieiv.  That  the  animal  repre- 
sented the  offerer  himself.  Part  was  given  to  God 
on  the  altar,  and  part  given  to  the  priests,  (i.  e.,  God's 
people,)  and  thus  the  offerer  was  brought  into  union  and 
fellowship  with  God  and  his  people.  The  objections  to 
this  view  are  :    - 

(1)  The  offen-e«  eats  a  symbol  of  himself  Ee  was 
not  excluded  from  the  sacrificial  feast. 

(2)  The  priests  and  the  friends  form  two  separate 
companies,  but  according  to  this  they  should  be  one. 

2.  The  True  View.  That  this  is  a  feast  in  which  God 
is  the  host,  and  the  offerer  and  friends  are  guests.  This 
appears:  (1.)  The  flesh  was  the  flesh  of  a  sacrifice  which 
belonged  wholly  to  the  Lord.  (2.)  Not  only  that  which 
was  burned,  but  that  which  was  eaten,  is  called  the 
-  bread  of  God."  Lev.  7  :  20-21 ;  21 :  22.  (3.)  It  was  to 
be  eaten  before  the  Lord  in  his  court.  (4.)  From  K  T., 
1  Cor.  10:  18-21,  we  learn  that  the  offerer  is  the  guest 
of  that  deity  of  whose  sacrifice  he  eats.  (5.)  Analogy  of 
the  Lord's  supper,  and  of  the  parables  of  our  Lord. 
(6.)  This  view  is  necessary  to  the  sio^nificance  of  the  em- 
blems. This  feast  is  a  symbol  of  and  a  pledge  of  friend- 
ship, peace,  and  communion  with  God.  It  is  upon  the 
flesh  of  a  sacrificial  animal,  and  in  an  inward  apprecia- 
tion of  the  benefits  of  the  sacrifice.  The  guests  repre- 
sented the  whole  body  of  God's  people.  It  was  impos- 
sible for  them  all  to  get  together  in  one  place  and  at  one 
tirne,  (except  in  such'a  case  as  the  dedication  of  the  tem- 
ple,) and  so  a  selection  must  be  made.  And  the  family 
and  friends  composed  the  company  and  represented  the 
entire  body  of  God's  people.  So,  in  the  case  of  the^Pass- 
over,  each  company  represented  the  entire  people  of  God. 
So  also  in  the  Lord's  supper.  What  remained  was  to  be 
burned  and  thus  preserved  from  contamination   and  cor- 


56 


ruption.  There  was  a  distinction  between  the  thank- 
offering  and  the  vow  or  free-will-offering.  The  thank- 
offering  was  the  holiest,  and  hence  corruption  was  more 
strictl}'  guarded  against.  No  part  of  it  was  to  be  left 
until  the  next  day.     Lev.  7:  15. 

The  Vow  Siud  free-ivill  offering  could  be  left  until  the 
second  day.  Lev.  7  :  16-21 ;  19  :  6. 
U^  /vThe  Bloodless  ov  Vegetable  or  Meat-offering,  (Heb., 
MiNHAH.)  "Meat,"  in  our  English  version,--^"  food." 
The  r/^6<:</-offering  was  distinguished  from  the  drink-offev- 
ing,  and  yet  it  often  included  all  vegetable  offerings. 
The  materials  were  the  three  products,  grain,  oil,  and 
wine.  Ps.  104:  15.  Fruits  of  trees  and  garden  herbs 
were  excluded. 

Baehr  finds  a  correspondence  between  these  materials 
and  those  of  the  animal-offerings,  viz.,  bread=iiesh,  oil 
—  fat,  wine  =  blood.  This  he  says  is  the  reason  why  meal 
is  sometimes  allowed.  Lev.  6  :  11.  This  is  imaginary,  for 
oil  was  forbidden  in  the  meal  when  offered  as  a  sin-offer- 
ing; and  wine  cannot  represent  blood,  which  was  forbid- 
den to  be  drunk.  Grain  could  be  offered  (a)  as  grain  or 
grits,  (b)  Sisjluur,  fine  flour,  (c)  as  bread  or  caJces.  A  hand- 
ful of  Hour  or  a  cake  was  burned  on  the  altar  as  a  memo- 
rial before  God,  (It  signified  the  same  as  the  flesh  in  the 
animal  sacrifice.  It  was  an  oblation  of  food,  and  repre- 
sented the  consecration  of  labor  and  life  to  God.)  The 
rest  w^as  given  to  the  priests,  who  ate  it  in  the  court. 
Lev.  6 :  16.  Thus  God's  servants  were  to  be  fed  at  his 
table.  If  presented  by  tlie  priest,  none  was  eaten,  (Lev. 
6  :  23)  because  they  were  not  to  })rofit  by  their  own  sins. 
Oil  was  not  a  separate  constituent,  but  an  adjunct,  (1) 
because  the  oil  was  not  used  se])arately,  but  mingled; 
(2)  the  oil  is  co-ordinated  with  incense  ^Lev.  2:  15);  (3) 
oil  was  not  an  actual  article  of  food,  but  was  used  in  pre- 
paring it.  It  is  spoken  of  in  connection  with  bread  and 
wine.  Hence,  it  represented  not  a  sepaiate  gift,  or  that 
w4nch  yields  the  light  of  knowledge,  but  here  as  else- 
where, it  represented  the  Holy  Spirit,  without  whom  the 
sacrifice  would  not  be  complete  or  acceptable. 

Salt  and  Incense. — Salt  was  used,  because  it  repre- 
sented preservation,  the  opposite  of  decay.     A  covenant 


57 

of  &alt-=a  lasting  covenant.  Meat  which  endures.  In- 
cense was  an  accompaniment.  It  was  burned  on  the  offer- 
ins^  but  not  mixed  with  it.  All  the  incense  w^as  burned. 
It  represented  |/ra^/eir,  which  must  hallow  every  oblation. 
Honey  and  Leaven  were  prohibited.  Leaven  leads  to  fer- 
mentation and  corruption,  hence  it  was  a  symbol  of  evil. 
1  Cor.  5  :  6-8.  Honey  also  turns  to  sourness  and  cor- 
ruption. 

The  drink  offering  \Y'd^  a  separate  oblation,  but  was 
added  to  the  meat-offering.  It  consisted  of  wine,  not 
poured  at  the  base  of  the  altar,  but  upon  the  altar.  The 
drink  on  the  table.  Ex.  30  :  9.  We  know  this  to  be 
true  also  from  the  analogy  of  heathen  offerings.  The 
vegetahle-O'^Qvmg^  were  never  presented  alone,  but  must 
follow  a  bumf  or  peace-oU'evmg.  The  only  instances  to 
the  contrary  are  the  sin-offering  of  meal  in  poverty,  and 
in  the  offering  of  jealousy.     Num.  5  :  15. 


LECTURE  VIII. 

Purification  of   the   Mosaic  Law. 

These  form  the  second  class  of  Sacred  actions.     They 
were  designed  to  symbolize  the  removal  of  the  defilement 
and  pollution  of  sin,  as  the  removal  of  guilt  was  represented 
by  the  sacrificial  expiation.     The  distinction  of  clean  and  <Py^^<^^f^  -^ 
unclean  was  made  by  the  Levitical  Law.     The  design  of  -au<.<. 

these  minute  regulations  was  not  to  promote  1.  Cleaiili-  H^"^' 
ness  and  decency  among  the  people;  because  (a)  in  that 
case,  everything  filthy  would  have  been  ceremonially 
unclean.  This  w^as  not  the  case.  The  number  of  objects 
was  limited,  (b)  The  idea  of  personal  purity  and  cere- 
monial cleanliness  are  distinct  .  (c)  The  Orientals  are 
careful  about  the  latter  and  negligent  about  the  former. 
(d)  The  religious  character  of  the  purifications  is  not 
explained  by  this  view. 

2.  The  design  was  not  Sanitary,  i.  e.,  to  promote  the 
health  of  the  people,  (a)  This  viewentirely  overlooks  the 
religious  character  of  the  institutions.  The  Purifications 
belong  to  the  same  order  with  the  Sacrifices,  and  pertain  to 


58  .  • 

a  like  end;  and  it  would  be  in  contradiction  to  the  Mosaic 
system  to  suppose  that  religion  was  only  a  cover  to  some 
secular  end.  (b)  This  view  will  not  account  for  what 
these  laws  contain  or  omit.  A  person  may  come  iii  con- 
tact with  any  disease  except  lofrosy  without  becoming 
defiled,  but  could  not  come  into  the  presence  of  a  dead 
body. 

6.  Nor  was  there  anything  wrong  or  peculiarly  sin- 
fnl  in  those  things  which  were  called  unclean. 

(a)  There  was  nothing  morally  wrong  in  eating  one 
animal  and  not  another.  The  unclean  animals  had  no 
connection  with  the  kingdom  of  evil,  (b)  ]^or  was  there 
any  sin  involved  in  those  conditions  of  the  human  body 
which  were  considered  unclean.  E.  g.,  no  sin  was  con- 
nected with  the  natural  birth  of  children.  Barrenness 
was  even  regarded  as  a  curse  in  those  times.  So  the 
corpse  of  a  good  man  was  as  defiling  as  that  of  a  bad 
man.  (c)  Defilement  might  arise  from  actions  which 
were  actual  duties;  e.  g."^  the  burial  of  a  relative,  and 
certain  other  s<nwires  which  the  ritual  prescribed,  and 
which  could  not  be  neglected. 

The  Distinction  in  Animals  had  a  two-fold  purpose. 

1.  It  carried  a  distinction  of  right  and  wrong,  duty 
and  transgression,  into  the  ordinary  matters  of  da'ily  life. 

2.  These  laws  were  practically  a  wall  of  separation 
between  Israel  and  the  Gentiles,  with  whom  (Acts  10  :  28) 
they  could  not  so  much  as  eat.  This  distinction  in  ani- 
mals had  relation  only,  first,  to /oof,  and,  secondly,  to  the 
worship  of  God.  Clean  animals  only  could  be  eaten  or 
sacrificed.  Other  animals  could  be  used  for  any  other 
purpose.  The  criteria  of  distinction  were  drawn  partly 
from  the  organs  of  motion,  and  partly  f'rom  food.  In 
beasts,  both  were  regarded.  Those  were  clean  which  had 
the  parted  hoof  and  chewed  the  cud.  In  fish,  those  which 
had  fins  and  scales  were  clean.  This  referred  only  to  the 
organs  of  motion.  In  birds,  food  was  the  characteristic. 
Birds  of  prey  were  unclean.  The  distinction  between 
clean  and  unclean  was  not  without  foundation  in  the 
nature  of  things.  The  rules  were  simple  and  clear,  and 
embraced  the  chief,  if  not  all,  of  the  animals  used  for 
food.     One  class  represented  the  idea  of  pure  and  clean. 


59 

the  other  that  of  unclean.  It  has  been  supposed  that  it 
was  designed  to  suggest  that  those  who  belonged  to  God's 
kingdom  were  distinguished  by  their  walk  and  food. 
This  may  be  stretching  the  matter  too  far.  This  distinc- 
tion is  only  a  reflection  of  man's  state  of  deiilement  m 
the  presence  of  God.  When  men  come  near  to  God,  or 
He  to  them,  they  must  be  cleansed  from  impurity.  Ex 
19:  10-14;  Lev.  8:6;  Ex.  30  :  20 ;  :N'um.  8  :  7.  None 
but  the  pure  could  come  near  the  lioly  God. 

But  besides  these  rare  occasions,  and  the  select  few 
engaged  in  sacred  functions,  the  idea  of  clean  and  un- 
clean was  to  receive  a  symbolical  representation  which 
should  carry  it  into  the  affairs  of  daily  life.  The  defile- 
ment was  not  that  arising  from  voluntary  sin,  but  from 
the  involuntary  and  hereditai-y  taint  of  sin  in  all  men. 
This  was  denoted  by  selecting  the  extremes  of  life — hirih 
and  death.  Birth  is  the  source  of  human  corruption,  and 
death  the  final  result  of  it.  Each  of  these  had  its  own 
specific  curse  attached  to  it  in  the  fall  of  our  first  parents. 
These  are  the  two  poles  about  which  ceremonial  defile- 
ment centred,  creating  two  classes  of  impurity.  First. 
Everything  relating  to  hirth  was  defiled  ;  everything  sex- 
ual, whether  natural  or  diseased,  though  not  necessarily 
involving  sin.  See  Lev.,  Chapters  12  and  15.  The  series 
culminated  in  birth.  The  measure  and  gradation  of  de- 
filement was  indicated  by  three  particulars:     ^ 

(1.)  The  lengtli  of  time  during  wdiich  the  uncleanness  ')  J^^^^^^,^ 
continued.  t^-w.vM:, 

(2)  The  extent  to  which  this  defilement  could  be  com- *^    ^G 
municated.  -.  ^, 

(3)  The  character  of  the  ritual  necessary  to  its  removal.''  '^-' 
All  this  was  very  complicated. 

We  will  consider  them  in  order. 

(1)  The  Duration  was  various.  It  might  be  till 
evening  only  ;  in  grosser  cases  for  a  week,  measured  from 
the  beginning  of  the  uncleanness,  or  the  cessation  of  its. 
cause  ;  or  tor  40  days  or  twice  40.  Forty  was  a  sacred 
number.  The  four  sides  of  a  square,  (the  symbol  of 
regularity)  multiplied  bj^  10,  (the  symbol  of  completeness) 
=  40.  Israel  was  in  the  wilderness  40years.  The  period 
of  defilement  at  the  birth  of  a  male  child  was  40  days ; 


60 

of  a  female,  80  days.  These  longer  periods  were  sub- 
divided into  two  parts, — the  first  period  consisting  of  7 
or  14  days,  and  the  second  of  33  or  G6  days.  The  grade 
of  defilement  was  greater  during  the  first  7  or  14  days. 

(2)  The  liability  of  the  defilement  to  be  communicated 
varied.  The  lighter  kind  was  not  transmissible.  The 
more  serious  afifected  all  who  came  in  contact  with  the 
one  so  defiled.  The  most  serious  kind  defiled  not  only 
the  clothes,  bed,  etc.,  but  every  thing  that  was  touched 
or  spit  upon. 

(3)  The  mode  of  eflfecting  purification  varied  also, 
(a)  By  simple  washing  of  the  person  and  clothes  in  wa-ter; 
or  (b)  in  addition,  he  must  bring  two  doves  or  young 
pigeons  to  the  Sanctuary,  one  for  the  burnt-ofifering  and 
the  other  for  the  sin-oft*ering :  or  (c)  a  lamb  of  the  first 
year  for  the  burnt-ofi:ering  and  a  turtle-dove  for  the  sin- 
ofiering. 

The  Second  Source  wf  Ceremonial  Defilement  was 
Death; — either  contact  witii  a  dead  body,  or  leprosy, 
which  was  a  sort  of  living  death.  Num.  12 :  12.  The 
eating  of  a  clean  animal  which  died  of  itself  or  was  torn 
by  wild  beasts,  was  a  source  of  defilement.  Ex.  22  :  31; 
Lev.  11  :  39 ;  17  :  15.  Also  to  touch  the  dead  carcass 
of  an  unclean  beast.  Lev.  11:  24-28.  A  human  corpse 
was  still  more  defiling.  This  appears  (a)  from  the  dura- 
tion of  the  uncleanness  which  was  for  7  days;  (b)  in  its 
communicability.  Num.  19:  14;  (c)  in  the  ritual  for 
cleansing.  The  wasljing  with  water  was  not  enough  here, 
not  even  pure  running  water,  but  ashes  must  be  mingled 
with  it,  and  these  ashes  must  be  prepared  in  a  peculiar 
and  significant  way.  The  ashes  were  those  of  a  sin- 
offering,  prepared  with  peculiar  rites  for  this  special  pur- 
pose. Hence  this  exhibits  sin,  not  only  as  defilement  to 
be  washed  away,  and  shows  the  necessity  of  a  sacrificial 
atonement,  but  also  shows  that  this  atonement  is  an  indis- 
pensable prerequisite  to  the  cleansing.  The  customary 
sin-ofifering  was  a  young  bullock.  Lev.  4  :  14.  But  this 
sin-ofifering  was  a  7'ed  heifer.  In  ordinary  sin-oiFerings, 
the  color  was  indiff'erent.  The  red  was  a  symbol  of  life 
and  vigor, — being  the  color  of  blood.  "  To  prepare  an 
antidote  to  death,"  refers  to  the  means    of  purification 


61 

from  contact  with  a  corpse.  The  heifer  must  be  one 
upon  which  a  yoke  had  never  rested  to  impair  its  vi^^or. 
This  heifer,  unlike  the  ordinary  sin-oifering,  was  not  to 
be  taken  to  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  and  there  slain  ; 
but  it  must  be  brought  without  the  camp  and  slain  there 
by  the  eldest  son  of  the  High  Priest  and  the  blood 
sprinkled  7  times  toward  the  Sanctuary.  It  was  then 
burned  whole  and  the  ashes  gathered  by  a  clean  man  and 
put  in  a  clean  place  outside  the  camp,  to  be  used  in  puri- 
fying. Those  officiating  in  this  service  were  all  rendered 
unclean  and  were  required  to  wash  their  clothing,  etc. 
This  exclusion  from  the  sanctuary  and  all  the  defilement 
resulting  from  the  ceremony  brought  the  whole  service 
into  connection  with  the  idea  of  defilement  and  pollu- 
tion, and  was  performed  in  relation  to  it.  Thus  the  cere- 
mony was  defiling,  though  a  duty.  So  the  lesson  is 
taught  : — we  may  contract  defilement  in  holy  services. 
While  the  heifer  was  burning,  the  priest  cast  into  the 
flames  cedar  ivood,  hyssop^  and  scarlet.  Cedar  was  incor- 
ruptible ;  hyssop  was  used  in  cleansing;  and  scarlet  was 
the  color  of  blood,  suggesting  life.  These  ashes,  mingled 
with  running  water,  were  sprinkled  upon  the  unclean 
person  from  a  bunch  of  h3'SSop,  on  the  third  and  seventh 
davs,  and  after  bathin^^  and  washins^  his  clothes,  he  shall 
be  clean  at  evening.  Num.  19  :  19.  And  the  persons 
who  officiated,  and  any  who  touched  the  water,  were 
rendered   unclean. 

Leprosy  was  but  a  living  death.  Very  minute  speci- 
fications are  given,  (I^um.  14,)  by  which  the  priests  could 
detect  it.  Read  Lev.  13  and  14  chapters,  for  the  mode 
of  purification.  The  rites  of  cleansing  consisted  of  two 
parts.  The  first  effected  the  restoration  to  civil  rights  ; 
the  second  to  tlie  communion  of  the  Sanctuary.  In 
order  to  the  first,  two  living  birds  were  taken,  one  as  a 
sacrifice  for  the  offerer,  the  other  as  a  symbol  of  himself 
The  former  was  killed  over  running  water,  and  the  liv- 
ing bird  was  then  dipped  in  the  mixture  of  blood  and 
water  and  the  leper  sprinkled  7  times  with  it.  The 
leper  was  then  pronounced  clean  and  the  bird  let  loose. 
After  w^ashing,  bathing  and  shaving,  and  a  probation  of 
7  days,  he  was  admitted   to   full  civil  rights.     See  Lev. 


62 

14  :  8,  9.  Hirf  restoration  to  the  privileges  of  the  Sanc- 
tuary was  effected  on  the  following  day.  A  Tresimss, 
Sill,  Burnt  and  Meat-ofievmg  were  to  be  made ;  a  tres- 
pass-offev'mg  in  compensation  for  lack  of  service.  Blood 
and  oil  were  taken.  Lev.  14  :  12-19.  This  signified 
the  application  of  the  benefits  of  the  sacrifice  to  the 
organs  of  hearing,  doing,  and  running  to  obey  God's 
commands.  Oil  signified  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  sin-offer- 
ing (Lev.  14:  19)  was  added  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
trespass-offering,  as  an  atonement  for  the  sin  which  the 
lepros}^  represented.  Restoration  being  thus  effected,  the 
burnt  and  meat-offerings  signified  consecration  of  self 
and  life.  Read  Lev.,  chapters  13  and  14,  and  IN'um.  19; 
also,  in  Smith's   Dictionary,  the  article  on  Purification. 


LECTURE  IX. 

Sacred  Persons — Were  tliose  who  were  admitted  to 
Sacred  Places  and  entrusted  with  the  performance  of 
Sacred  Rites  ?  Man  had  forfeited  the  right  of  access  to 
God,  and  no  act  of  service  rendered  by  him  was  accept- 
able. ITone  could  approach  God,  save  those  whom  He 
chose.  Israel  was  God's  peculiar  people — a  holy  nation. 
They  were  God's  people  in  a  special  sense,  and  had  the 
privilege  of  access  to  Him  in  a  special  way.  In  the  en- 
campment in  the  wilderness,  the  Tabernacle  was  placed 
in  the  centre  of  the  encampment.  God  thns  dwelt  in  the 
midst  of  his  people.  They  also  had  access  to  the  court 
of  his  Tabernacle.  Within  the  square  formed  by  the 
encampment  of  the  tribes  around  the  Tabernacle,  was 
another  square  in  which  dwelt  the  Sacerdotal  Tribe  of 
Levi  and  the  Priests.  The  Levites  were  chosen  for  the 
service  of  the  Sanctuary.  They  belonged  to  it,  not  only 
as  worshippers,  but  were  permanently  OL-cupied  there. 
They  were  selected  for  the  service  of  God,  in  lieu  of  all 
the  first-born  of  Israel,  who  were  to  be  consecrated  to 
God  in  acknowledgment  that  they  had  received  all  things 
from  him,  and  to  commemorate  the  slaying  of  the  first- 
born in  Egypt.     They  were   located  next  to  the  Taber- 


f.^.'^Wn^ 


l- 


^3     3    ;  b   7- 


■1  •  ^  i 


I  ^'  i/ 


63 

nacle  on  two  sides  and  in  the  rear.  They  were  charged 
with  the  transportation  of  the  Tabernacle  and  the  keep- 
ing of  the  sacred  vessels.  Moses,  Aaron,  and  his  sons, 
encamped  in  front  of  the  Tabernacle.  They  w^ere  al- 
lowed a  still  nearer  approach  to  Gud.  The  priests  were 
admitted  into  the  Holy  Place,  and  the  High  Priest  once 
a  year  entered  the  Holy  of  Holies.  There  was,  then,  a 
gradation  in  the  sanctity  of  the  people,  corresponding  to 
the  apartments  themselves.  The  Priesthood  was  not  a 
caste,  but  was  chosen  "  from  among  the  people  "  by  God 
and  invested  with  the  office  which  originally  belonged  to 
all  the  people.  God  promised  to  make  them  all  kings 
and  priests.  Ex.  19 :  6.  This  is  the  destiny  of  God's 
people.  They  were  not  at  first  ready  for  the  fall  realiz- 
ation of  this  promise.  They  showed,  by  defalcation  and 
disorders,  that  tiiey  could  not  yet  rule  themselves.  This 
right  to  reign  was  therefore  left  in  abeyance  for  a  time. 
The  khigly  authority  was  temporarily  committed  to  one 
of  their  number,  (Deut.  17  :  15  ;j  to  one  who  had  no 
claim  to  it,  in  anticipation  of  the  full  realization  of  the 
promise.  This  is  so  also  in  the  Priesthood.  The  Priest 
is  one  who  enjoys  a  degree  of  intercourse  with  God  which 
is  denied  to  others.  He  comes  nearer  to  God.  Heb. 
5i  1.  The  characteristic  expression  is  that  they  come  near 
to  God,  and  bring  near  the  appointed  offerings.  Israel 
was  a  nation  of  Priests,  but  was  not  yet  ripe  for  the 
office.  They  showed  this  at  Mount  Sinai.  They  trembled 
at  the  presence  of  God  and  entreated  Him  not  to  come 
near  them,  but  speak  through  Moses.  This  was  a  con- 
fession of  their  unfitness  to  approach  God-,  but  the 
Priestl}'  office  was  not  to  be  abandoned  ;  it  was  put  into 
the  hands  of  a  few  as  representatives,  until  the  time  when 
all  should  be  priests. 

The  Levites  had  no  inheritance.  The  Lord  was  their 
inheritance.  Their  labor  was  given  ex-clusively  to  Him. 
No  other  labor  was  allowed  them.  The  Lord  gave  them 
their  support  from  the  Sanctuary.  Forty-eight  cities, 
four  in  each  tribe,  with  their  suburbs,  were  assigned 
them  in  the  territory  of  the  several  tribes.  Six  of  them 
were  Cities  of  Refuge.  These  cities  were  counted  as  be- 
longing to  the  tribes  in  which   they  were  situated.     The 


64 

Levites  were  thus  distributed  among  the  people'.  These 
six  Cities  of  Refuge — three  on  each  side  of  the  Jordan 
— were  sanctuaries  or  as^dums  not  for  criminals  but  to 
protect  the  unintentional  manslayer.  1  Kings,  2:26. 
As  the  altar  was  the  place  of  refuge,  so  were  these  cities. 
The  manslayer  was  to  remain  there  till  the  death  of  the 
High  Priest.  Num.  35:  25;  Josh.  20  :  6.  There  are 
various  explanations  of  this. 

1.  Some  think  that  the  death  of  the  High  Priest  was 
so  great  a  public  calamity,  that  all  private  feelings  of 
grief  and  revenge  should  be  obliterated.  2.  Others  think 
that  the  Cities  of  Refuge  were  under  the  special  control 
of  the  High  Priest,  and  his  control  being  ended  at  his 
death,  they  became  free.  3.  The  true  view  is,  that  the 
High  Priest  being  the  representative  of  the  whole  peo- 
ple, his  death  had  a  peculiar  expiatory  force,  and  set  the 
man  free  from  his  disabilities.  ,  This  was  typical  of 
Christ. 

The  Support  of  the  Levites.— 1^ urn.  18  :  21-32.  There 
was  no  tribute  paid  by  the  people  directly  to  the  Levites, 
but  one-tenth  was  given  to  God.  Ten  was  the  complete 
number  of  the  digits,  and  hence  represented  the  total 
amount  of  their  possessions.  One  part  was  given  to  God 
in  acknowledgment  that  the  whole  came  from  Him. 
Gen.  28  :  22.  This  tithe  was  given  to  the  Levites,  and 
they  in  turn  gave  one-tenth  of  what  they  received  to  the 
Lord,  and  this  was  bestowed  upon  the  priests.  Lev. 
23  :  9.  The  first  fruits  of  the  harvest  were  presented  to 
the  Lord  and  given  to  the  priests;  also  the  firstlings  of 
cattle  ;  also  the  first-born  of  men  were  to  be  redeemed 
and  the  sum  obtained  given  to  the  priests.  This  furnished 
ample  support  for  the  Levites.  They  had  no  landed  es- 
tates. They  were  dependent  upon  the  rigorous  obser- 
vance of  the  Law  by  the  people.  They  were  to  attend 
to  the  service  of  the  Sanctuary  from  the  age  of  25  or  30, 
to  50 — in  the  prime  of  life.  The  Priests  must  be  with- 
out blemish  in  their  persons.  The}^  might  eat  of  the 
sacred  things,  but  could  notofi:er  at  the  altar,  unless  free 
from  impurity. 

Dress. — The  ordinary  dress  of  the  priests  consisted 
of  fine  white  linen-,  namely,  the   mitre,   robe,  cloak,  &c. 


65 

Ex.  28.  They  wore  a  cap,  breeches,  and  a  cloak  reach- 
ing from  the  neck  to  the  feet.  These  represented  purity 
and  holiness.  This  appears  :  (1.)  They  were  called  "  hol}^ 
garments."  Ex..28  :  4.  (2.)  In  Rev.  18  :  8, 13,  14,  the  same 
dress  is  repeatedly  spoken  of  as  worn  by  angels ;  Mark 
16  :  5.     Also  worn  by  ''  the  ancient  of  days."     Dan.  7  :  9. 

The  Girdle  was  made  of  line  linen  ornamented  with 
blue,  pur|;)le  and  scarlet.  The  High  Priest's  dress  was 
distinguished  by  its  elegance  and  costliness.  He  wore 
the  same  style  of  dress  as  the  ordinary  priest,  but  over  it 
he  wore  a  robe  of  blue  wovcin  in  one  piece.  It  was  thus 
seamless,  like  the  robe  of  our  Saviour,  signifying  com- 
pleteness or  perfection.  Blue  is  the  color  of  the  heavens, 
indicating  the  celestial  character  of  the  wearer. 

The  Ephod  was  in  two  pieces,  back  and  front,  joined 
by  clasps  on  the  shoulders.  The  clasps  were  made  of 
onyx,  on  which  were  graven  the  names  of  the  tribes.  It 
was  made  of  fine  linen,  ornamented  with  gold,  blue, 
purple  and  scarlet.  These  were  the  colors  of  a  gorgeou'i 
sky  and  of  the  inner  coverings  of  the  Tabernacle.  They 
denoted  the  divine  or  heavenly  functions  of  the  wearer. 

The  Breastplate  was  over  the  Ephod — was  made  of 
linen  in  a  square  piece,  and  was  adorned  with  gold,  blue, 
purple  and  scarlet.  Jn  it  were  twelve  precious  stones  in 
four  rows  ;  on  each  stone  was  the  name  of  a  tribe.  The 
material  of  the  Breastplate  was  folded  so  as  to  make  a 
pouch,  to  contain  the  Urim  and  Thummim,  which  sig- 
nified respectively  light  and  perfection.  These  terms  are 
nowhere  explained.  The  Breastplate  was  attached  to  the 
Ephod  by  chains  and  rings.  Ex.  28  :  28.  The  High 
Priest  thus  bore  the  names  of  the  tribes  conspicuously  on 
his  person,  when  he  approached  the  Lord,  signifying  that 
he  appeared  as  the  representative  of  the  people.  The 
stones  were  all  precious  but  difiPerent,  signifying  that 
God's  people  have  their  distinctive  peculiarities. 

The  Urim  mid  Thummim  were  worn  when  the  High 
Priest  approached  God  to  ask  counsel, — signifying  the 
divine  infallibility,  etc. 

The  Mitir-  was  of  linen,  like  that  of  the  ordinary 
priests  but  differed  in  form — probably  being  higher— and 
had  a  golden  plate  on  the  forehead,  bearing  the  inscrip- 


66 

tioD — "  Holiness  to  the  Lord."  No  mention  is  made  of 
a  coverino^  for  the  feet,  whence  it  appears  that  they  went 
unshod,  as,  e.  g.,  Moses  on  Mt.  Sinai,  and  Joshua  in  the 
presence  of  the  captain  of  the  Lord's  hosts.  Shoes  were 
to  protect  the  feet  from  defilement.  Those  who  were  in 
the  Tabernacle  were  on  holy  ground,  where  nothing  was 
needed  for  the  feet.  The  idea  is  that  purity  was  required 
of  those  who  came  near  to  God. 

The  sacredness  attached  to  the  Priests  and  Levites  was 
conveyed  to  them  by  the  rites  of  consecration.  Israel 
was  origitially  constituted  the  people  of  God  by  a  solemn 
service.  It  was  after  the  proclamation  of  the  Law  from 
Sinai,  Ex.  Chapters  20  and  23.  The  people  promised 
obedience.  It  was  before  the  Tabernacle  was  made  or 
any  ordinance  of  worship  established.  To  conclude  this 
covenant,  an  Altar  was  erected  as  a  point  of  meeting, 
around  which  were  12  pillars.  So  the  place  where  God 
revealed  himself  was  in  the  midst  of  the  people.  Moses 
who  acted  as  Priest,  took  the  blood,  and  sprinkled  half 
on  the  Altar,  and  half  on  the  people.  This  was  done 
after  the  reading  of  the  law,  and  the  people  had  promised 
obedience.  There  was  no  sin-offering  on  this  occasion, 
because  the  law  of  the  sin-offering  was  not  yet  promul- 
gated. The  Patriarchal  sacrifice  was  still  in  use.  The 
burnt-offering,  which  was  the  primitive  form,  stands  here 
as  sufficient  for  expiation.  The  sprinkling  of  blood  was 
designed  to  express  expiation  for  sin.  The  peculiarity 
of  this  sacrifice  was  that  one-half  of  the  blood  was  placed 
on  the  altar,  signifying  God's  acceptance  of  his  part  of 
his  covenant;  and  one-half  on  the  people,  denoting  the 
application  of  its  merits  to  those  for  whom  it  was  shed. 
Some  have  thought  that  an  additional  reason  was,  that  it 
was  a  satisfaction  of  a  covenant,  and  the  blood  was 
divided  between  the  two  contracting  parties,  as  was 
sometimes  customary. 

It  indicated  that  both  would  be  united  in  life  and 
purpose  henceforth.  The  slaying  of  the  victim  denoted 
the  judgment  which  would  follow  the  breakers  of  the 
covenant.  After  this  was  the  Sacrificial  Meal.  The  peo- 
ple were  represented  by  Moses,  Aaron  and  his  sons,  and 
the  70  elders.     Seventy  was  a  symbolical  number.     It  was 


67 

the  product  of  7  and  10— the  hitter  denoting  complete- 
ness. It  was  also  a  Imtorical  number,  beincr  the  number 
of  Jacob's  descendants,  when  he  went  down  to  Kgypt, 
Gen.  46  :  27.  It  was  also  the  number  of  ^N'oah's  descend- 
ants, Gen.  10.  The  number  represented  a  world-wide 
function  and  destiny.  These  representatives  of  the  peo- 
ple went  up  and  saw  God  in  Mt.  Sinai,  and  ate  and  drank 
before  him.  The  people  were  then  brought  into  com- 
munion with  God,  and  became  his  peculiar  people. 
This  relation  was  to  be  permanently  maintained  and 
expressed  by  the  service  of'  the  Sanctuary. 

The  Consecration  of  the  Priests.— L^iv.  8.  Effected  by 
two  series  of  equivalent  acts  of  three  each.  The  first 
series  was  symbolical,  and  the  second,  sacrificial. 

The  first  series  consisted  of  (1)  Washing,  which  de- 
noted  preliminary  cleansing;  (2)  Clothing,  which  denoted 
investiture  with  the  priestly  office;  (3)  Anointing,  which 
denoted  the  imparting  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  second  series  consisted  of  (1)  ^Sm-offering,  which 
purged  from  sin,  and  corresponded  to  the  washing;  (2) 
Bwrnt-oi^'ev'mg,  which  denoted  consecration  to  sacred 
office,  and  corresponded  to  the  clothing;  (3)  Peace-of^er- 
ing.  which  sealed  communion  with  God,  and  corres- 
ponded to  the  anointing. 

Moses  officiated  in  the  sacrifices  because  there  were  no 
Priests  yet ;  for  Aaron  and  his  sons  were  not  properly 
priests  until  the  service  was  over.  Blood  was  put  on  the 
tip  of  the  ear,  right  thumb,  and  right  great  toe,  to  make 
atonement  for  guilt  and  purify  these  organs  for  God's 
service.  Their  persons  and  dress  were  also  sprinkled 
with  blood  and  oil.  These  services  were  repeated  for 
seven  days,  and  on  the  eighth  day  began  their  sacred  func- 
tions. During  those  first  seven  days,  they  were  not  to 
leave  the  court  of  the  Tabernacle.  These  services  were 
to  be  repeated  whenever  a  new  High  Priest  was  to  be 
consecrated. 

The  Consecration  of  the  Levites  is  described  in  Num- 
bers 8 :  5-22.  This  took  place  when  they  left  Mt.  Sinai, 
because  their  part  of  the  services  was  to  transport  the 
Tabernacle,  and  there  was  thus  a  necessity  for  them. 
The  rites  of  consecration    were  inferior  in   solemnity  to 


68 

the  consecration  of  the  priests.  Moses  was  directed  to 
cleanse  the  Levites,  but  to  sanctify  the  Priests.  There 
were  two  series  of  acts  and  two  in  each. 

The  first  series,  symbolical   as  before,   consisted    of 

(1)  Washing  and  Cleansing;  (2)  Consecration  by  Waving. 
The  second   series    was    sacrificial.     (1)  Sin-offering ; 

(2)  Burnt-offering.  In  the  cleansing  they  were  sprinkled 
with  the  water  of  purifying.  Their  hair  was  shaven  and 
clothes  washed.  Their  clothes  were  renewed  and  cleansed, 
because  they  were  to  enter  upon  a  new  function.  They 
had  no  official  dress,  since  they  only  attended  the  priests, 
and  were  not  really  invested  with  office.  They  were  sub- 
stitutes for  the  first-born  of  all  the  tribes.     The  children 

of  Israel  laid  their  hands  on  the  Levites,  and  the  obliga-  j^vvv*^j 
tion  of  service  was  thereby  transferred  to  them.     Then 
the  Levites  were  waved  toward  the  Tabernacle  and  to- 
ward the  Priests,  denotinsj  that  thev  were  Hven  to  the 
latter  to  perform  the  service  of  the  sanctuary.     The  sac- 
rificial acts  were  (1)  Sin-offering,  which  denoted  purga-  ^^^ 
tion  of  sin,  and  (2)  Burnt- o^mwg^  which  denoted  conse-  ^'^" 
cration.     They  were  then  prepared  for  the  service  of  the  ''^ 
Tabernacle,  to  which  they  were  set  apart. 


LECTURE 


^- 


Sacred  Times.    ^     '  '^ 

^         '      r 

The  most  general  term  is  Moadhim,  set  times,  be- 
cause they  returned  at  stated  periods.  The  general  idea 
is  that  of  certain  portions  of  time  withdrawn  from  their 
ordinary  occupations,  and  devoted  to  God  ;  yet  not  as 
a  ])ayment,  but  as  a  tribute,  and  an  acknowledgment  that 
all  their  time  belonged  to  God  and  His  service. 

These  special  duties  were  (a)  Negative,!,  e.,  abstinence 
from  ordinary  secular  labor;  (b)  Positive, \.  e.,  special  acts 
of  worship,  both  ceremonial  and  spiritual,  as  the  multi- 
plication of  sacrifices  and  holy  convocations,  prayer  and 
religious  devotions. 


69 

The  Sacred  Seasons  instituted  by  Moses,  were  of  three 
kinds,  contemplating  God  under  tliree  aspects,  as  1.  Cre- 
ator ;  2.  Preserver  ;  3.  Sanctijier. 

I.  As  Creator.  A  series  of  Sabbaths,  or  Sabbatical 
Series,  based  on  the  weekly  Sabbath,  being  the  same  idea 
extended.  The  Sabbath  had  existed  from  the  beginning 
of  the  world,  just  as  the  sacrifice  had  from  the  Fall 
Both  these  primitive  institutions  were  incorporated  and 
expanded  in  the  Mosaic  Ritual.  That  the  Sabbath  was 
so  instituted  at  the  beginning  of  the  world  appears — 

(1)  From  Gen.  2  :  3.  Th'is  could  not  have  been  in- 
serted in  the  account  by  way  of  anticipation  of  a  future 
Sabbath,  because  God's  blessing  the  seventh  day  could  no 
more  be  postponed  than  His  blessing  the  other  days  of 
creation. 

(2)  From  the  actual  allusions  before  Sinai,  to  periods 
of  seven  days,  and  the  sacredness  of  the  number  seven. 
There  were  seven  clean  animals  in  the  Ark  ;  and  Koah 
waited  seven  days  at  different  times.  It  was  incorporated 
in  the  language  :— the  verb  to  swear,  in  Hebrew,  is  derived 
from  the  word  seven. 

(3)  These  periods  of  seven  days,  and  the  sacredness 
of  the  number  seven,  can  be  traced  to  other  nations  who 
did  not  borrow  from  the  Jews. 

(4)  The  Sabbath  was  observed  before  Sinai  by  the 
children  of  Israel.     Ex.  12:  19. 

(5)  In  the  Fourth  Commandment  the  word  remember 
occurs. 

The  Sabbatical  Series  was  formed  by  applying  the 
number  seven  to  every  denomination  of  time.  The 
seventh  day  was  the  Sabbath  ; — a  day  of  rest  for  man  and 
beast.  The  seventh  year  was  a  year  of  rest  for  the  land, 
w^hich  was  to  remain  uncultivated  that  year.  The  Fif- 
teenth year,  or  the  year  following  the  Seventh  SabbaticaK 
year  was  the  Year  of  Jubilee,  when  took  place  the  res- 
toration of  property,  reparation  for  injuries,  etc.  The 
seventh  month  was  in  a  certain  sense  sacred.  Its  first 
day  was  to  be  kept  as  a  Sabbath  by  abstaining  from  labor, 
and  there  were  a  great  number  of  festivals  in  this  month. 
These  were  all  intended  to  be  remembrancers  of  God,  and 
a  testimony  to  Him  who  Himself  rested  on  the  seventh 


70 

day  of  Creation.  The  retusiiig  to  keep  the  Sabbath  was 
a  denial  of  the  Creator,  and  hence  the  Sabbath  was 
spoken  of  as  a  sign  of  the  covenant  of  God  with  Israel. 
It  represented  the  covenant  on  the  side  oi Nature^  as  cir- 
cumcision did  on  the  side  of  Grace.  These  various  Sab- 
baths were  periods  of  rest  from  worldly  labor  in  com- 
memoration of  God's  rest.  They  were  designed  further 
to  remind  the  Israelites  of  the  rest  that  God  had  given 
them  from  the  bondage  of  Egypt.  It  restored  man's 
strength,  and  was  also  a  transient  restoration  of  man's 
primitive  condition  before  the  curse  of  labor  had  been 
pronounced  upon  him,  and  furthermore  was  a  type  of 
the  future  rest  from  toil. 

II.  Those  which  celebrate  God  as  Preserver.,  in  two 
respects,  viz.,  Historical  and  Agricultural.  These  feasts 
numbered  three,  and  were 

1.  The  Passover,  commemorating  their  deliverance 
from  Egypt  and  the  slaying  of  the  first-born.  It  was  at 
the  beginning  of  the  harvest.  It  was  on  the  fifteenth 
day  of  the  first  month,  (i.  e.,  the  day  following  the  four- 
teenth day,)  and  lasted  for  seven  days. 

2.  The  Feast  of  Weeks  or  Pentecost.,  occurring  on  the 
fiftieth  day  after  the  Passover,  lasting  o7ie  day  only. 
This  feast  marked  the  end  of  the  harvest.  The  Feast  of 
Weeks.,  according  to  tradition,  commemorated  the  giving 
of  the  Law. 

3.  The  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  on  the  fifteenth  day  of 
the  seventh  month,  and  lasted  seven  days.  It  commem- 
orated the  dwelling  in  tents  in  the  wilderness.  It  also 
marked  the  end  of  the  vintage,  or  the  ingathering  of 
fruits. 

The  feasts  of  the  Passover  and  Tabernacles  began  at 
full  moon.  After  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  was  the  day 
of  the  Solemn  Assembly,  a  general  and  formal  conclu- 
sion of  all  the  festivals  of  the  year. 

III.  Those  in  which  God  is  regarded  as  a  Sanctifier. 
This  class  contained  one  item,  the  great  Day  of  Atone- 
ment. It  was  a  general  expiation  for  the  sins  of  the 
year.  It  occurred  on  the  tenth  da}^  of  the  seventh 
month. 


71 

There  were  seven  days  in  the  year  which  were  festive 
Sabbaths,  besides  the  weekly  Sabbaths.  These  were  the 
first  and  seventh  days  of  the  Passover,  the  day  ofthe  Feast 
of  Weeks,  and  four  days  in  the  sacred  (i.  e.,  the  seventh) 
month.  These  last  were  the  first,  the  tenth  (i.  e.  day  of 
atonement,)  the  fifteenth  (i.  e.,  the  first  day  of  the  Feast 
of  Tabernacles,)  and  the  twenty-second  (i.  e,,  the  day 
after  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.)  All  these  were  to  be 
observed  as  Sabbaths  by  abstinence  from  labor,  &c. 

These  various  sacred  times  had  their  special  sacri- 
ficial services.  On  every  day,  a  lamb  was  offered,  morn- 
ing and  evening,  for  a  burnt-oft'ering,  together  with  the 
appropriate  meat-offering.  On  the  weekly  Sabbath,  the 
daily  Sacrifices  were  doubled  and  fresh*^  Shew  Bread 
was  to  be  put  on  the  Table.  On  the  first  day  of  each 
months  there  was  a  festival-offering  of  a  he-goat  for  a  Sin- 
offering,  and  ten  animals,  viz.,  two  bullocks,  one  ram 
and  seven  lambs  of  the  first  year,  for  a  burnt-offering. 
No  abstinence  from  labor  was  enjoined,  but  a  trumpet 
was  blown,  (Num.  10  :  10)  which  represented  the  loud 
call  to  God  by  the  people  that  He  would  remember  them. 
The  first  day  of  the  seventh  month  was  to  be  kept  as  a 
Sabbath,  and  a  double  festival-offering  was  to  be  pre- 
sented. Abstinence  from  labor  was  enjoined,  and  the 
trumpet  was  sounded,  in  louder  tones. 

I.  The  Passover  was  instituted  when  they  left  Egypt,  and 
was  to  be  observed  annually  thenceforth.  It  was  called 
also  the  Feast  of  Unleavened  Bread.  It  consisted  of  two 
parts,  (a)  the  Passover  Meal  strictly  so  called  ;  (b)  the 
eating  of  unleavened  bread  for  seven  days.  The  Pass- 
over is  to  be  reckoned  a  sacrifice.  Some  of  the  Reformed 
Theologians  deny  this  in  order  to  confute  the  Romanists 
who  said  that  the  Lord's  Supper  was  a  sacrifice,  because 
the  passover  which  it  supplanted  was  such.  That  it  was 
a  sacrifice  appears 

(1)  Because  it  was  expressly  so  called.  Ex.  12  :  27  ; 
I.  Cor.  5  :  7.  (2)  It  was  so  regarded  by  the  Jews, 
although  the  blood  was  not  sprinkled  on  the  altar  at  first, 
(Deut.  16  :  5-7)  because  the  Tabernacle  was  not  yet  built. 
It  was  offered  there  and  the  blood  sprinkled  on  the  altar 
in  later  times.     II.  Chron.  30:  16;  35:  11.     The  Pass- 


72 

over  was  not  a  iSm-offering-.  It  had  none  of  the  hitter's 
peculiar  features,  but  its  blood  had  an  atoning  virtue. 
It  was  a  species  of  Peace-offermg.  It  included  a  Sacrifi- 
cial Meal. 

The  requirements  were  exact.  The  lamb  was  to  be 
selected  on  the  tenth  day,  i.  e.,four  daj^s  previous  to  the 
feast.  This  was  fancifully  supposed  to  represent  the  four 
generations  of  Israel  in  Egypt,  (Gen.  15  :  16,)  while  others 
supposed  it  to  have  reference  to  the  symbolical  character 
of  the  number  four.  Both  explanations  are  too  remote. 
It  was  probably  set  apart  on  the  tenth  day  for  the  same 
reason  that  the  great  Day  of  Atonement  was  on  the  tenth 
day.  Notice  the  Ten  Commandments  and  the  ten 
plagues,  etc.  It  occurs  frequently,  and  besides  being  con- 
venient, is  symbolical  of  completeness.  The  lamb  was 
to  be  slain  between  the  evenings ,  where  the  original  does 
not  use  the  Dual,  and  which  ma}-  mean  (a)  between  the 
sunset  of  the  first  day  and  the  total  darkness  of  the  sec- 
ond ;  or  (b)  from  the  latter  part  of  the  afternoon  till  sunset. 
This  is  the  correct  view,  as  may  be  shown.  In  the  first 
place,  the  blood  was  to  be  sprinkled  on  the  door  posts 
and  lintels  of  the  house.  Atonement  was  thus  made  for 
the  house  and  its  occupant.  The  head  of  the  family  exer- 
cised this  priestly  function,  which  was  afterward  confined 
to  the  priests. 

The  Passover  Meal  denoted  communion  with  God, 
based  on  the  expiation  of  sin. 

Peculiarities  of  this  Feast. — The  lamb  must  be  placed 
upon  the  table  ivhole.  'No  bones  were  to  be  broken.  It 
was  typical  of  Christ's  body,  and  the  unity  of  His  church 
and  people.  The  whole  lamb  was  to  be  eaten  in  one 
house.  The  same  idea  was  included  as  before.  None 
must  be  left  until  the  next  day.  It  must  not  be  boiled, 
which  would  separate  it,  but  was  to  be  roasted,  to  pre- 
serve its  oneness.  No  part  of  it  was  to  be  carried  out  of 
the  house.  All  that  remained  was  to  be  burned,  to  pro- 
tect it  from  corruption  or  contact  with  common  things. 

The  manner  of  eating  it  was  designed  to  remind  them 
of  their  previous  condition,  and  of  the  circumstances  of 
its  institution  and  the  great  deliverance  which  it  com- 
memorated.    It  was  to  be  eaten  with  bitter  herbs,  which 


73 

suggested  the  bitterness  of  Egyptian  oppression,  and 
wiUi  unleavened  bread,  which  was  a  symbolical  represen- 
tation of  incorruption,  and  which  had  also  an  historical 
association,  because  they  had  not  time  to  leaven  their 
bread.  Deut.  16  :  3.  It  was  to  be  eaten  in  haste,  with 
their  loins  girded,  and  shoes  on  their  feet,  and  staves  in 
their  hands.  These  peculiar  circumstances  were  laid 
aside  in  later  times.  During  each  of  these  seven  days, 
a  goat  was  to  be  offered  for  a  sin-offering,  and,  in  addi- 
tion, ten  animals,  viz.,  2  bullocks,  1  ram,  and  7  lambs, 
for  a  burnt  offering,  and  the  prescribed  meat-offering.  A 
sheaf  of  the  first-fi'uits  vras  to  be  waved  before  the  Lord, 
before  they  could  partake  of  the  harvest.   Lev.  23  :  10. 

II.  'Y:\\q  Feast  of  TFf^A:^.— Fifty  days  after  the  secondday 
of  the  Passover,  i.  e.,  the  day  following  the  completion  of 
seven  weeks.  It  v/as  called  also  the  Feast  of  Barrest. 
Ex.  23:  16;  The  day  of  First  Fruits;  and  was  called 
Pentecost  in  Joseph  us  and  in  the  New  Testament,  Acts 
2  :  1.  Barley  harvest  began  at  the  time  of  the  Passover, 
and  wheat  harvest  ended  with  the  Feast  of  Weeks.  This 
feast  lasted  one  day,  which  day  possessed  a  Sabbatic 
character.  No  work  was  to  be  done;  and  a  holy  convo- 
cation was  enjoined.  Two  loaves  of  the  first  fruits  and 
the  usual  festive  offering,  viz.,  a  he-goat  for  the  sin-offer- 
ing, and  ten  animals  for'the  burnt-otfering,  consisting  of 
2  bullocks,  1  ram,  and  7  lambs — and  the  customary  meat- 
offering. Now  that  the  harvest  w^as  concluded,  loaves 
and  not  sheaves,  were  to  be  brought,  just  as  at  the  Pass- 
over. Two  loaves  were  now  brought,  representing  a 
livelier  sense  of  gratitude  at  the  end  of  the  feast. 

III.  The  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  called  also  the  Feast  oi 
Ingatherwg,  was  held  after  the  fruits  ^vere  gathered  in, 
paVticularly  the  oil  and  wine.  It  was  celebrated  for  seven 
days,  beginning  with  the  15th  day  of  the  7th  month. 
They  were  to  dwell  in  booths,  commemorating  their 
sojourn  in  the  wilderness.  It  thus  had  both  historical 
and  agricultural  associations.  It  was  the  most  joyous 
feast  of  the  year.  Thof  offerings  were  larger  than  on  the 
other  occasions,  consisting  of  tivo  rams,  fourteen  lambs, 
and  thirteen  bullocks  at  the  beginning,  and  seven  at  the 
close.  The  number  decreased  one  each  day,  making  70 
in  all. 


74 


The  lirst  day  was  observed  as  a  Sabbath,  and  then  the 
eighth,  day,  or  the  day  after  the  festival,  which  did  not 
belong  strictly  to  the  feast.  That  this  is  so  appears,  (1) 
because  the  lodging  in  the  booths  lasted  only  seven  daj's  ; 
and  (2)  because  the  sacrifices  on  this  day  did  not  stand 
in  regular  gradation  to  those  of  the  other  days,  but  con- 
sisted of  te7i  animals,  viz.,  one  he-goat,  one  bullock,  one 
ram,  and  seven  lambs.  This  was  a  solemn  termination  of 
all  the  festivals  of  the  year. 

The  Great  Day  of  Atonement. — This  occurred  live  days 
before  the  feast  of  Tabernacles^  on  the  tenth  day  of  the 
seventh  month.  It  represented  a  general  atonement  for 
the  sins  of  Israel  during  the  year,  and  for  the  sanctuary 
itself;  Lev.  16  :  16.  The  atonement  on  this  day  was  not 
merely  for  undiscovered  sins,  because  these  were  in- 
cluded in  the  general  atonement  at  the  new  moon,  but 
all  the  sins  of  the  year  were  atoned  for  afresh.  This  was 
an  intimation  that  the  acts  of  atonement  were  incomplete, 
as  indicated  in  the  Epistle  to  tlie  Hebrews.  This  was 
not  merely  to  supplement  the  previous  sacrifices  or  atone- 
ment, but  it  was  the  same  act.  It  was  made  in  the  Holy 
of  Holies  by  the  High  Priest,  and  was  thus  a  fuller  and 
more  exalted  type  of  Christ,  the  true  and  adequate  atone- 
ment. The  entire  day  was  observed  as  a  fast^  the  only 
fast  of  divine  appointment  in  the  Jewish  Calendar. 
Then  came  the  special  services  of  the  day.  The  High 
Priest  first  bathed  himself  and  put  on  a  clean  white  gar- 
ment, i.  e.,  the  ordinary  dress  of  the  priests  and  not  his 
usual  robe.  After  making  a  Sin  and  B urnt- o^^vm^^  for 
himself  and  his  house,  came  the  characteristic  service  of 
the  day — an  offering  oitivo  he-goats  and  a  ram  for  a  burnt- 
offering.  The  atonement  was  made  in  the  Holy  of  Holies. 
God  appeared  in  a  cloud  over  the  Mercy-seat,  and  the 
blood  of  the  sin-offering  of  the  priests  and  of  the  sin- 
ofi'ering  of  the  people  was  sprinkled  upon  the  Mercy- 
seat.  This  expiation  was  repeated  at  the  Altar  of  In- 
cense and  at  the  Brazen  Altar  in  the  Court.  The  most 
remarkable  peculiarity  was  in  the  fact  that  there  were 
two  he- goats  in  the  sin -offering.  One  was  slain,  and  its 
blood  was  carried  into  the  Holy  of  Holies.  The  other 
was  sent  into  the  wilderness.     Lots  were  first  cast  upon 


\ 


,CO^^ 


75 

them,  one  for  Jeliovah,  (La-Jehovah)  and  one  for  (La- 
AzAZEL,)  a  word  derived  from  Azal,  to  remove. 

Four  explanations  of  this  term.  -y  ^' 

1.  A?  a  place  ; 

2.  As  tlie  name  of  the  goat ; 

3.  As  an  abstract  term  ; 

4.  As  a  personal  being. 

I.  If  a  vlace,  it  must  be  either  the  proper  name  of 
some  particular  locality  in  the  wilderness  to  which  the 
goat  was  to  be  taken,  or  a  remote  retired  place.  There 
is  no  trace  anywhere  of  such  a  name  or  place.  In  Lev. 
16  :  10,  he  was  to  be  taken  into  the  wilderness. 

IL  The  English  version  and  the  Vulgate  apply  this 
term  to  the  qoat,  and  render  it  •'  Scape-goat.''  Some  say 
it  is  a  compound  word,  from  E  Z,  a  goat,  and  that 
Azal,  means  to  go  away.  Thi^  is  not  true,  but  a  fanci- 
ful explanation.  It  may  mean  something  entirely  re- 
moved.    One  name  was  given  to  Jehovah,  and  one  La- 

AZAZEL. 

III.  If  it  was  an  abstract  term,  it  must  have  repre- 
sented a  complete  removal,  and  explained  the  two  ideas 
in  the  pardon  of  sin,— (a)  expiation,  (b)  removal.  The 
ordinary  sacrifice  was  sufficient  to  express  the  former, 
but,  in  this  case,  both  ideas  must  be  represented  ;  first,  a 
goat  was  to  be  slain  as  an  expiation,  and,  secondly,  the  . 
sins  were  to  be  carried  away  by  the  other  goat. 

lY.  Those  who  adopt  this  view  say  it  was  n personal  des- 
ignation, a  name  for  Satan.  They  argue  (1)  that  it  makes 
a  more  exact  contrast  in  the  lots,  as  God  in  contradis- 
tinction to  Satan.  (2)  That  this  goat  was  ^Qut  to  Azazd, 
in  the  wilderness,  and  that  in  several  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture the  wilderness  is  represented  as  the  especial  abode 
ofdevils  and  evil  spirits;  Isa.  13  :  21;  U:  14.  The  word 
translated  Sattfr  is  translated  Devils  in  Lev.  17  :  7,  and  in 
Rev  ^^2.  Devils  are  spoken  of  as  inhabiting  waste 
places.  In  Matth.  12  :  43,  the  evil  spirit  is  spoken  of  as 
walking  through  dry  places.  In  Luke  8  :  27,  we  read 
that  an  evil  spirit  was  in  the  tombs.  Also  in  the  Apoc- 
rypha; Tobit  8:3;  Baruch  4:  35.  (3)  The  name  Azazel, 
they  say,  is  appropriate  for  Satan,  as  being  utterly 
removed  from  the  presence  of  God.     The   difficulties   of 


76 

this  pei\-oiiMl  view  ai^e  (a)  Satan  is  nowhere  else  in  the 
Bible  called  by  this  name,  (b)  There  is  no  allusion  to 
Satan  as  connected  with  the  Day  of  Atonement.  There 
is  nothing  in  the  Ceremonial  to  suggest  this  view,  unless 
it  be  the  doubtful  meaning  of  this  word.  Many  in  mod- 
ern times  adopt  this  view,  on  this  supposition. 

If  Azazel  is  Satan,  it  is  variously  explained  in  four 
ways. 

(1.)  That  the  goat  was  sent  as  a  sacrifice  to  propitiate 
the  Devil.  To  this  we  say  :  (a)  This  idea  is  abhorrent  to 
the  notions  of  religion  and  to  the  Mosaic  institutions, 
which  particularly  forbade  the  worship  of  anything  but 
God, — and  expressly  prohibited  sacrifice  to  Devils;  Lev, 
17  :  7.  (b)  The  hvo  goats  were  one  oftering  and  not  tw^ ; 
and  were  also  a  AS'm-ofi'cring,  which  could  not  have  been 
appropriately  ofi:ered  to  the  Devil,  because  it  implied  holi- 
ness in  tlie  person  to  whom  it  was  ofl:ered.  Both  the 
goats  were  brought  to  tlie  Tabernacle,  and  God  decided 
which  was  to  be  sent  into  the  wilderness.  The  only 
reason  why  there  were  two  animals  was  because  two  ideas 
were  to  be  represented  ;  one  must  be  alive  to  carry  away 
the  sin  after  the  other  had  been  sacrificed.  The  second 
goat  was  really  the  first  one  over  again,  being  analogous 
to  the  two  birds  in  the  cleansing  of  the  leper. 

(2.)  That  the  Goat,  laden  with  the  sins  of  the  people, 
was  sent  to  the  Devil  to  be  tormented  by  him,  and  t-o 
show  God's  hatred  of  sin.  There  is  nothing  to  substanti- 
ate this  view. 

(3.)  Tliat  the  sins  belonged  to  tlie  Devil  and  hence 
were  sent  there  in  the  person  of  the  goat. 

(4.)  This  is  the  most  common  explanation,  that  it  was 
an  act  of  defiance  and  scorn  against  the  Devil,  the  sedu- 
cer and  accuser  of  Mankind.  The  sins  are  sent  to  the 
Devil,  having  been  first  atoned  for,  that  he  may  do  his 
worst  with  them.  He  can  never  bring  Israel  into  con- 
demnation. 

The  choice  seems  to  be  between  this  last  view  and 
the  view  which  makes  it  an  abstract  idea.  It  would  seem 
that  the  latter  is  preferable.  It  appears  that  the  two 
goats  are  identical  in  signification,  one  supplementing  the 
other, — the  second  carrving  out  what  the  first  could  not 
do. 


77 

All  typicrd  theories  vvbieh  make  a  distinction  between 
the  two  o^oats  are  erroneous. 

(1.)  Prof.  Bosh  says  that  tlie  iirst  goat  represents 
Christ,  and  the  second  the  Jews. 

(2.)  Some  hold  that  the  first  goat  represented  Christ's 
human  nature,  and  the  second  his  divine  nature. 

(3.)  Or  that  the  first  represented  Christ's  death,  and 
the  second  his  resurrection. 

Christ  accomplished  both  ideas,  and  hence  both  were 
tj'pical  of  Christ,  the  first  making  atonement  for,  and 
the  second,  securing  the  removal  of  sin.  After  this,  the 
High  Priest  removed  his  dress,  washed  himself,  put  on 
his  ofiacial  robes,  and  then  offered  the  proper  offerings. 
The  person  who  took  the  goat  into  the  wilderness,  and 
the  one  who  burned  the  fat  of  the  sin-oflfering,  were  both 
rendered  unclean. 


/ 


■^  78 


Lectures  in   Philology. 


LECTURE  I. 

The  Families  of  Languages. 

Gen.  I  I  :  i — "And  the  whole  earth  was  of  one 
language,  and  of  one  speech:"  and  so  it  was  origi- 
nally. 

This  verse  has  been  a  stimulus  to  endeavors  to 
find  this  primitive  tongue.  The  test  of  having  found 
it  would  be  to  show  clearly  that  all  others  owe  their 
origin  to  and  are  derived  from  it.  All  research,  how- 
ever,  has  thus  far  shown  that  at  this  day  it  is  too  late 
to  discover  it.  But  though  such  is  the  case,  yet 
astonishing  analoofies  have  been  discovered. 

Research  formerly  proceeded  on  several  errone- 
ous assumptions  : — e.  g., 

1.  It  was  assumed  that  a  bare  similarity  of  sound 
between  words  of  like  sense  denoted  identity  of  ori- 
gin. But  this  is  not  so  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
sounds  and  words  originally  alike  must  be  so  much 
chanoed  as  not  to  be  recoo^nized.  The  modern 
Greek  ^ojti  (I)  and  the  Polynesian  niata  (I)  have  no 
connection  of  origin.  On  the  other  hand,y^?/;7/0' 
comes  from  dies,  through  diiirims  and  the  French 
jour.      So  also  stranger. 

2.  It  was  assumed  that  the  presence  of  the  same 
or  related  words  in  two  laneuaores,  established  their 
organic  connection.  But  such  words  may  have  been 
merely  borro2ved  from  one  language  by  another  by 


'hoU±U^aUl^^ 


^■\\\\t  t  TmlMlii    1  '.■       r    / V-  't'; 


^(KUG^CL^f^  W^ 


t7^^y 


W". 


0•■^^^^><^ 


U 


'LJ 


^iU>u^. 


>4  t  h 


tf*. 


0  i-^u^ 


yt^cnJ^P 


\  <»  i- 


jtcct4'^'  >  r^  v^'»u*<-^^  ^ci^/^ 


'''U-4 


7 


i 


79 

intercourse  ; — e.  g.,  Moslem,  Sultan,  Dragoman,  are 
from  the  Arabic,  and  yet  the  EngHsh  has  no  connec- 
tion with  it. 

3.  They  paid  attention  only  to  the  etymology  of 
the  words,  disregarding  the  grammatical  structure  of 
the  language,  which  is  a  truer  test.  Though  the 
English  has  words  from  many  languages,  its  gram- 
matical structure  clearly  denotes  its  origin,  the  Anglo- 
Saxon,  Germanic.  The  Turkish,  the  Persian,  the 
Hindoo  languages  are  entirely  distinct  from  the  Ara- 
bic, and  though  they  are  full  of  words  borrowed  from 
the  Arabic,,  their  grammatical  structure  clearly  shows 
their  distinctness. 

4.  It  was  assumed  that  relationship  between  two 
languages  proved  that  one  was  derived  from  the 
other  :  whereas  both  may  have  been  derived  from 
some  other  language.  Latin  is  related  to  Greek  ; 
both  are  related  to  Sanscrit  ;  yet  neither  has  sprung 
from  the  other.      There  is  only  an  affmity. 

Now  that  sounder  principles  have  been  adopted, 
although  unity  of  language  has  not  been  and  prob- 
ably cannot  be  reached,  yet  astonishing  analogies 
have  been  discovered,  and  languages  have  been  re- 
duced to  a  few  Groups.  Ethnology  aids  here,  though 
its  divisions  and  those  of  Philology  do  not  precisely 
coincide.  There  are  nations  closely  allied  by  physi- 
cal structure,  which  speak  languages  entirely  dis- 
tinct, and  vice  vei^sa.  Hence  existing  diversit)'  oi 
both  are  not  inconsistent  with  unity  of  origin. 

The  Old  Testament  is  written  in  Hebrew,  (with 
a  few  verses  in  Chaldee).  This  language  was  not 
selected  because  of  anyspecial  sacredness,or  because 
it  was  the  primitive  language  ;  but  merely  because  it 
was  the  language  spoken  by  the  people  chosen  as 
the  custodians  of  revelation  during  the  time  the  reve- 
lation was  being  given. 


80 

There  are  eig^ht  o^reat  Families  of  Lanoruaores,  in- 
eluding-  almost  all.  Some  few  have  not  yet  been 
classified  ;  e.  g.,  the  Basque  language,  near  the  Bay 
of  Biscay,  in  France,  has  no  apparent  affinity  to  any 
language.  Many  have  not  yet  been  thoroughly  ex- 
amined. But  enough  is  known  to  justify  the  fore- 
going classification.  These  eight  Families  differ  not 
only  in  their  stock  o(  words,  but  also  in  their  £-e7iera/ 
structure,  and  are  thus  divided  into  three  ereat 
Groups. 

I.  Isolating  Lang2iages,  or  those  of  undeveloped 
roots  :  having  no  inflection  ;  no  parts  of  speech  ;  no 
modifications  of  the  forms  of  words  to  express  num- 
ber, gender,  tense,  etc.  ;  and  no  derivation  of  words 
from  one  another  ;  but  only  ultimate  roots  thrown 
together. 

II.  Agglutinative  Langtiages  : — One  step  better  ; 
not  having  mere  ultimate  roots  loosely  thrown  to- 
gether, but  possessing  all  the  various  parts  of  speech, 
gender,  number,  etc.,  by  modifying  syllables  ;  though 
these  are  only  artificially  cemented  to  the  root,  and 
do  not  lose  their  individuality.  The  word  is  built  up 
by  additions,  the  original  and  independent  character 
of  its  constituents  not  however  beine  lost  sig^ht  of. 

III.  Injlective  La?ig7iages : — most  highly  devel- 
oped ;  the  word  not  being  a  mere  conglomeration, 
but  an  oro^anic  whole.  It  is  a  growth,  in  which  the 
branches  are  inseparably  joined  to  the  trunk. 

I.   Includes  3  families. 
II.  "         3        '< 

III.  "         2        " 

We  will  glance  at  all  these  families.  For  details 
see  Dwiorht's  Philoloev. — Max  Muller,  —  Whitney, 
etc. 


81 

I.   Isolating  Group. 

First  Family, — Malay  ov  Polynesian.  This  ex- 
tends over  Malacca  and  the  great  body  of  islands  in 
the  Indian  and  Pacific  oceans  from  Madagascar  to 
the  Sandwich  Islands. 

Polysyllabic  ;  restricted  in  the  number  of  sounds  ; 
has  from  seven  to  ten  consonants.  Each  word  is  a 
simple  syllable,  i.  e.,  a  vowel,  or  a  consonant  and 
vowel.  A  mixed  syllable,  or  a  final,  or  compound 
consonant  is  unknown. 

Second  Family, —  Chinese.  This  extends  over 
S.  E.  Asia,  China  proper,  farther  India,  Thibet,  Bir- 
mah,  Siam. 

Mo?iosyllabic  ;  words  have  no  determinate  value 
as  parts  of  speech  ;  the  same  word  may  be  a  verb, 
and  an  adjective,  and  a  noun,  etc.  There  is  no  in- 
flection for  gender,  except  personal  pronouns,  which 
have  a  peculiar  variation  for  number,  by  fusion  with 
numerals,  forming  a  singular,  dual,  triple  and  plural. 
The  Pronoun  of  the  First  Person  has  a  variation,  ac- 
cording as  the  speaker  is  included  or  not.  This  is 
the  purest  type  of  Isolating  Languages  ;  the  most 
improtant ;  the  best  known  ;  the  most  highly  culti- 
vated ;   has  a  large  and  extensive  literature. 

Third  Family, — Hamitic,  Coptic,  or  Ancient 
Fgyptiafi.  This  is  separated  from  the  other  families 
of  the  group  by  the  entire  continent  ot  Asia.  It  is 
spoken  also  in  Abyssinia,  and  among  the  Libyan 
tribes,  as  well  as  among  the  Hottentots,  and  the 
Bushmen  of  South  Africa. 

Mcnosyllabic  ;  consists  of  mere  roots  ;  has  a 
slight  approach  to  inflection  ;  has  syllabic  suffixes. 

See  the  hieroglyphics,  mummy  wrappings,  etc. 
This  language  ceased  to  be  spoken  in  Egypt  three 
or  four  centuries  ago. 


82 

11.   Agglutinative  Group. 

First  Family.     This  is  the  most  important  Group 

— Turanian  or  Scythian,     includes  the  roving  tribes 

<s/f  ^JLOL,  —    of  Central  and  Northern  Airiioa,  and  along  the  north 

of  Europe;  consisting  of  Mongolians,  Tartars,  Fins, 

Laplanders,  Turks, Southern  Hindostanee,  Japanese. 

The  root  is  always  at  the  beginning  of  the  word, 
agglutinative  ;  the  syllables  being  always  sujjixed. 

Second  Family, — South  African.  All  Southern 
Africa,  from  a  few  degrees  north  of  the  Equator, 
with  the  exception  of  the   Hottentots  and  Bushmen. 

All  the  languages  of  this  Family  are  closely  re- 
lated, the  West  and  East  Coast  of  Africa  being 
much  alike.  Though  spoken  by  barbarous  tribes, 
yet  it  has  great  flexibility  of  structure  and  copious- 
ness of  form.  It  has  a  series  of  conjugations  much 
like  the  Hebrew.  The  agglutinative  syllables  are 
often  prefixed.  There  is  no  declension  of  nouns,  etc. 

Third  Family, — American.  North  American 
Indians.  It  has  an  immense  variety  of  dialects,  yet 
all  are  related. 

Polysynthetic  or  incorporative  ;  accumulates 
words  of  enormous  lengfth.  Pronouns  and  numerals 
have  from  three  to  ten  syllables. 

III.  Inflective  Group. 

Two  Families, — spoken  by  the  white  race,  and 
the  most  influential.  It  is  spoken  by  civilized  nations, 
and  is  therefore  best  known. 

( I . )    Indo-Furopea7i. 

(2.)    Se77iitic. 

The  New  Testament  is  written  in  the  former  ; 
the  Old  Testament  in  the  latter.  The  Indo-Euro- 
pean is  so  called  from  the  extremes  of  territory  where 
it  is  spoken — India  and  Europe.     We  find  a  belt  ex- 


83 

tending  between  them  through  Afghanistan,  Persia, 
Europe,  (excepting  in  the  north  of  Europe.) 

Differences  Between  the  Two  Families  : 

Indo-European  ton gties  form  zuords  and  inflections 
by  additions  external  to  the  root ;  Semitic  by  internal 
changes  mainly.    E.  g.  : 

Love — lover — loving — beloved. 

Amo — amor — amatus — amabilis. 

^tap — ^tDp — Sisp — Spp — 'iDp — etc. 
The  Semitic  is  formed  by  vozvel  changes  in   the' 
body  of  the  root,  or  prefixed  or  affixed  ;  or  else  by 
doubling  the  letters  of  the  root,  (except  in  pronomi- 
nal suffixes.) 

In  the  Indo-European,  formative  prefixes,  etc., 
are  outside  ;  the  root  only  changes  through  laws  of. 
euphony,  as  caedo,  csesus,  incido,  in  order  to  ease  the 
pronunciation.  Some  internal  changes  have  now  a 
signification  which  they  did  not  originally  possess  ; 
e.  g.,  man,  men  ;  foot,  feet ;  break,  broke.  These 
look  like  internal  inflection,  but  are  not  so.  Man 
had  a  regular  plural,  ma7is, — the  change  of  ^  to  ^ 
being  merely  euphonic,  and  often  occurring  In  the 
singular. 

The  Indo-European  root  is  a  single  syllable,  the 
ultimate  unit  of  articulate  speech  ;  a  vowel,  or  a 
vowel  with  one  or  more  associated  consonants.  The 
root  Is  one  indivisible,  invariable  whole,  the  vowel 
being  an  inalienable  part  of  it.  The  Semitic  roots 
have  only  consonants,  and  as  a  root  Is  unpronounce- 
able, being  a  frame-work  or  skeleton,  while  the 
vowels  are  the  tissue  and  flesh.  Consonants  deter- 
mine the  radical  signification  of  the  word  which  the 
vowels  shade  or  alter.  The  Semitic  alphabet  has  no 
vowels  ;  the  Indo-European  languages,  In  which 
vowels  form  an  essential  part,  in  adopting  the  Semi- 


84 

tic   alphabet,  changed    the    superabundant   guttural 
into  vowels,   e.  g.,  j<=oc,  a  ;   n=f,  e  ;   n=yj,  a  ;  ;'=o. 

There  is  no  fixed  number  of  letters  in  the  Indo- 
European  roots,  but  they  must  be  pronounced  in  one 
syllable.  The  Semitic  has  a  uniform  number  ;  bilit- 
erals  are  too  brief,  and  triliterals  are  the  briefest  that 
could  orive  a  sufficient  number  of  combinations. 
Therefore  Semitic  words  are  triliteral.  Ouadriliterals 
are  a  later  formation. 


LECTURE  II. 

(i.)  It  is  hence  easier  for  the  Semitic  verb  to 
have  its  peculiarities  than  for  the  Indo-European 
verb.  The  verb  in  Semitic  is  the  word  par  excellence, 
giving  life  to  every  sentence.  It  has  the  simplest 
vowels,  as  Kamets,  etc.,  especially  in  the  Arabic.  It 
intensifies  the  meaning  and  pronunciation  by  doub- 
ling the  radicals.  The  verb  has  fewer  peculiarities 
in  the  Indo-European.  Causatives,  desideratives, 
etc.,  correspond  in  some  degree  to  the  Semitic  in- 
flections. 

(2.)  Hence  there  is  a  richness  in  the  Indo-Euro- 
pean inflections,  and  more  variety  is  possible  ;  pov- 
erty in  the  Semitic  as  to  tense,  mood,  etc.  Greek 
has  nine  tenses  ;  Semitic  two.  Unlimited  means  in 
Indo-European  of  multiplying  them  ;  but  the  changes 
of  vowels  possible  in  the  three  consonants  of  the 
Semitic,  are  few.  The  Semitic  noun  in  the  construct 
state,  results  from  the  same  fundamental  principle. 

The  Indo-European  great  variety  of  tongues, — 
Celtic,  Germanic,  Italic,  Sclavonic.  Greek,  Iranian, 
Indian.  The  Semitic  has  only  three  branches — Ara- 
maean Hebrew,  and  Arabic,  all  closely  related. 


85 

(3.)  The  Semitic  has  been  of  a  stationary  charac- 
ter from  its  very  formation  ;  the  Indo-European  has 
more  mobihty.  The  former  is  rigid  and  changes 
slowly.  F'rom  Moses  to  Malachi,  (i,ooo  years,)  there 
appears  less  change  than  in  the  English  since 
Shakespeare,  (300  years),  while  1,000  years  back,  in 
the  time  of  Alfred,  the  Saxon  language  was  used, 
and  the  English  was  still  unformed.  The  Indo-Euro- 
pean is  perpetually  developing  and  progressing. 
The  Semitic  structure  does  not  admit  of  this — and 
this  reacted  on  the  nations  speaking  it.  The  Semite 
is  the  same  from  age  to  age  ;  has  the  same 
habits  and  modes  of  life.  The  Semite  remains  in  the 
same  place  ;  the  Indo-European  stretches  over  both 
of  the  continents  of  Europe  and  Asia.  For  this 
reason,  the  Old  Testament  was  given  to  the  Semite, 
to  remain  and  keep  the  oracles  of  God.  But  when 
Christ  came,  and  the  Gospel  was  aggressive,  and  to 
be  spread,  then  the  New  Testament  was  given  in  an 
Indo-European  tongue. 

The  lack  of  variety  in  the  Semitic  tongues  is  due 
not  only  to  their  method  of  internal  yZ^<f/z'^;/,  but  also 
to  their  triliteral  roots,  No  attrition  of  consonants 
at  ends  of  words  is  possible,  for  the  word  can't  spare 
any,  without  changing  itself  entirely  ;  no  abridging  ; 
no  chaneinp-  of  the  three  consonants.  The  Arabic 
has  now  many  roots  which  are  the  same  as  those 
used  by  Moses. 

The  stationary  character  of  the  people  reacted  on 
the  language,  as  seen  in  the  fact  that  there  is  no  need 
of  new  terms,  and  their  own  language  was  not  im- 
posed by  conquest  and  commerce  on  new  nations, 
or  corrupted  and  mixed  thereby,  as  is  seen  in  the 
English.  Arabic  is  now  left  alone  to  represent  the 
family. 

The  Second  great  Difference,  (relating  to  the 
meaning,  not  to  the  outward  form,)  is  that  the  Semitic 


86 

is  more  pictorial ;    the  Indo-European  is  nio7^e  reflec- 
tive. 

E.  g.,  (i.)  Semitic  has  only  two  genders  ;  the  idea 
of  sex  beine  carried  throuo^h  all  inanimate  nature 
and  abstractions.  Indo-European  languages  almost 
all  have  a  third  gender  for  objects  destitute  of  sex, 
though  not  always  regarding  it. 

(2.)  While,  in  both  languages,  words  denoting 
abstractions  are  based  on  roots  primarily  relating  to 
external  objects,  in  Indo-European  this  primary  idea 
is  lost  sight  of,  in  Semitic  it  is  retained.  As  sincere, 
sine  c era — pure  honey  ;  tribulation,  tribuluni,  a  thresh- 
ing instrument ;  agony,  referring  to  the  stmiggles  of 
the  contestants  in  games.  Inculcate,  t?'eacl  grain  into 
the  soil.  In  Semitic  the  metaphor  remains  in  con- 
sciousness ;  both  significations  co-exist.  Anger,  ^, 
t]3N,  to  breathe,  hard  breathing;  n-pn,  heat;  pn,  burn- 
ing; -(^;\  boiling  ;  TJ^,  breaking  asunder  ;  D;n,  roaring. 
Desire,  «?V'  thirst ;  =^p3,  grow  pale.  Pardon,  isp,  cover ; 
HDD,  hide.  Patient,  slow  breathing  ;  impatient,  fast 
breathing. 

(3.)  A  want  of  precision,  or  definiteness  of  ex- 
pression. Their  pictorial  form  of  expression  barely 
suggests  the  thought  in  outline.  It  aims  at  vividness 
and  force  more  than  detail.  Thus  the  Semitic  (in  the 
tenses)  refers  all  to  the  unlimited  ^^^/  or  the  unlim- 
ited future,  and  has  only  one  form  of  each.  The 
Indo-European  adds  the  vanishing/r^j-^;^/,  and  to  the 
other  various  modifications,  adds  the  imperfect,  per- 
fect, pluperfect,  future,  and  future  perfect.  So  of 
moods. 

The  Semitic  gives  the  sentences  without  con- 
catenation, without  denoting  their  relation,  and  has 
few  conjunctions.  It  simply  joins  two  clauses  by  the 
word  and,  leaving  the  reader  to  guess  at  the  nature 
of  the  connection.  The  Indo-European  has  a  multi- 
tude of  particles,  etc. 


87 

(4.)  Range  and  description  of  their  literatures. 
The  Semitic  writes  of  history  (or  palpable  facts,)  tales, 
fables,  parables  (or  imaginative  fiction,)  lyric  and  sen- 
tentious poetry,  brief  utterances  of  the  feelings  or 
wise  sayings.  But  it  has  no  romances  proper,  no 
heroic  or  dramatic  poems  with  complicated  plots.  It 
has  no  orations  of  such  a  kind  as  those  of  Webster 
and  Calhoun  ;  and  no  arguments  advancing  to  an 
irresistible  conclusion. 

Renan,  taking  up  the  idea,  says  the  Semites  were 
moiiotheists  by  instinct;  but  he  takes  no  notice  of  the 
idolatrous  Assyrians  and  Ninevites,  who  were  Sem- 
ites. 

Hence  the  Semitic  was  especially  fitted  for  the 
Old  Testament,  dealing  in  outlines  and  shadows. 
The  New  Testament  is  precise  and  clearly  revealed, 
and  therefore  in  its  final  form,  required  an  Indo- 
European  tongue.  Paul  was  educated  in  Grecian 
philosophy,  etc. 

The  Thii'd  Difference  is  a  subordinate  one.  The 
mode  of  writing.  The  Semite  writes  from  right  to 
left ;  the  Indo-European  the  reverse.  (Exceptions  to 
both  are  found.  The  Ethiopic  from  left  to  right  like 
the  Greek  ;  Persian,  Hindoo,  from  right  to  left  like 
the  Arabic.) 

Points  of  Agreement. 

They  belong  to  the  same  Group,  the  Inflective, 
and  have,  therefore,  (i )  many  grammatical  analo- 
gies; (2)  a  great  number  of  roots  clearly  identical. 
For  examples,  see  Gesenius.  (Though  many  simi- 
lar sounds  are  merely  casual  ;  e.  g.,  -^i^^,  well,  and  the 
English  bore  are  not  related  ;  nor  are  ^-^^  and  direc- 
tion;  nor  natural  sounds  s^^p,  cry  ;  2>^,  pa,  pater.) 

Some  say  all  triliteral  roots  were  originally  bilit- 
eral,  and  that  the  triliterals  were  formed  by  inserting 


88 

weak  letters,  or  adding  letters  :  i:  to  cut,  \t:- — to 
off — ru  to  cut  down — '^u  to  flay — tt:  to  shear — nj: 
to  hew — Qj:  to  devour — ;:>:  to  separate — ^u  to  pass 
through,  etc. 

The  name  given  to  the  family  of  languages  kin- 
dred to  Hebrew  and  Chaldee,  have  been  many,  Je- 
rome called  them  "  orientaiy  but  we  know  of  coun- 
tries farther  east,  where  the  Semitic  prevails  ;  ''Syro- 
Arabianr  'named  from  the  extreme  limits,  just  as 
Indo-European  ;)  Semitic ^  (from  Shem)  is  the  name 
most  used,  for  'Gen.  lo,)  Shemites  are  the  chief 
member  of  the  group.  The  Hebrew,  Aramaeic  and 
Arabic  languages,  come  from  Shem  ;  the  Elamites 
and  Libyans  are  also  from  Shem,  though  these 
speak  Indo-European.  Canaanites  and  Phoenicians 
are  from  Ham,  yet  they  speak  the  Semitic  lan- 
guages. 

The  Semitic  tongue  extends  from  the  Red  Sea 
and  the  Mediterranean,  to  the  Persian  Gulf  and  Ti- 
gris, and  from  Mt.  Taurus  on  the  North,  to  the 
southern  extremity  of  the  Arabian  Peninsula. 

It  includes  Arabia,  Palestine,  Syria,  and  Meso- 
potamia. These  tongues  existed  here  as  far  back 
as  they  can  be  traced,  and  whenever  driven  hence, 
They  are  spoken  there  yet,  though  overrun  by  Mo- 
hammedanism. 

Semitic  was  the  lanoruao^e  of  civilization,  of  trade, 
of  religion,  in  Ninevah,  Babylon,  Tyre,  Judeat  Juda- 
ism and  Christianity  arose  in  Palestine.  The  latter, 
though  spread  through  the  medium  of  Greek,  yet 
took  Semitic  types  of  thought.  Some  say  that  parts 
of  the  N.  T.,  as  Matthew,  were  originally  in  Hebrew, 
but  of  this  we  cannot  be  certain.  Mohammed  took 
his  language  from  Arabia.  Babylon  (Babel,  confu- 
sion of  tonguesj  has  had  a  mixed  population,  and 
therefore    mixed   languages  ever  since,  just   as    in 


89 

Constantinople  to-day.  Nebuchadnezzar  and  other 
monarchs  were  Indo-Eiiropeans,  but  their  generals, 
e.  g.,  Robshekar,  Avere  Semites  and  spoke  Aramaean. 
The  name  of  their  deity  Bel  is  Semitic.  Some 
names  are  partly  each.  On  their  ruins  there  are 
some  Semitic  characters,  some  Indo-European,  some 
in  a  third  language,  perhaps  Scythian. 

The  Canaanites  spoke  a  Semitic  dialect  much 
like  the  Hebrew.  Abraham  held  intercourse  with- 
out an  interpreter  ;  but  in  Egypt  Jacob's  sons  re- 
quired one.  Proper  names,  Melchisedec,  Abimelech, 
Kirjath-jearim,  Baal,  Moloch,  etc.,  are  Semitic. 

The  Phoe7iicians  spoke  Semitic,  and  so  also  did 
their  colonies,  Carthage,  and  even  Tarshish  on  the 
southern  coast  of  Spain.  This  might  arise  from 
their  nearness  to  Canaan.  Their  extensive  litera- 
ture has  all  perished.  We  can  judge  (a)  from  an- 
cient authors  of  other  languages,  quoting  proper 
names  and  other  words.  But  the  sound  is  often 
inadequately  expressed  in  a  foreign  language,  and  is 
unreliable.  (b)  From  Phoenician  monuments  ;  but 
they  have  no  sounds,  and  no  vowels,  spacing,  punc- 
tuation, etc. 

(a)  Proper  names  —  Tyre,  ^s^,  Rock  ;  Carthage, 
i^/nn  J7p,  New  City;  Adonis,  'vv^,  Lord;  Hannibal, 
Sr^  ^iin,  favor  of  Baal  ;  Hasdrubal,  S;*3  nr;:,  help  of 
Baal ;  Dido,  beloved  ;  Cadmus,  did,  the  east,  oriental. 

Plautus  has  a  passage  in  Carthaginian  and  a  Latin 
translation. 

(bj  Moimments,  as  found  at  Malta,  Marseilles, 
and  Cadiz,  have  Phoenician  names.  The  same  is 
learned  from  Carthage.  From  Tyre  we  have  coins, 
gems,  votive  tablets.  All  show  that  the  language  of 
the  Phoenicians  was  like  the  Hebrew. 

Some  have  said  that  Coptic  should  be  classed 
with  Semitic,  as  being  merely  an  older  type  and  a 


90 

more  primitive  form  of  it.  This  point  is  still  In  dis- 
pute. The  argument  Is  based  on  similarity  of  pro- 
nouns and  some  pronominal  suffixes.  But  the  weight 
of  authority  is  against  it.  There  are  three  branches 
of  Semitic  Languages  : 

1.  //6'^r^?V=  Hebrew  and  Phoenician. 

2.  Arama/<r=Chsi\dGe,  Syriac,  Samaritan  (mon- 
grel). 

3.  A raduz=z Archie  proper,  and  Ethiopic  (spoken 
in  Abyssinia).        ^  J^,^)-^.^*^^^- 

Hebrew  is  intermediate,  both  geographically  and 
philologically.  Aramaic  is  north  of  it,  Arabic  south. 
The  Arabic  Is  the  most  soft,  flexible  and  copious,  the 
Aramaic  least  so.  The  Aramaic  regular  verb  has 
ojie  voivel  (^^p),  the  Hebrew  tzvo  (^^p),  Arabic  three, 
(^t3p).  Conjugations  or  species.  The  Aramaic  has 
thirteen,  eleven  of  which  are  double,  thus  numbering 
twenty-four.     The  Hebrew  has  seven,  the  Arabic   -. 

The  Future.  The  Arabic  has  fotir  forms,  the 
Hebrew  has  three,  (simple,  paragogic,  and  apocopat- 
ed). The  Dual.  The  Aramaic  has  none  ;  the  He- 
brew only  in  nouns  ;  the  Arabic  in  nouns  and  verbs. 
Their  varying  copiousness  is  shown  in  vocabularies 
and  alphabets.  The  Aramaic  has  the  original  twenty- 
tw^o  letters  ;  the  Hebrew  doubles  the  pronunciation 
of  one.  Sin  or  Shin,  really  making  twenty-three  ;  the 
Arabic  doubles  six,  making  twenty-eight. 

Historical  Order. 

I.  Hebrew.  2.  Aramaean.  3.  Arabic.  Hebrew 
is  the  oldest  and  has  the  oldest  literature.  The 
Arabic  is  the  only  one  now  in  use  as  a  spokeji  lan- 
guage, except  among  a  few  scattered  tribes.  The 
number  of  dialects  of  Semitic,  therefore,  unlike  the 
Indo-European, is  diminishing  rather  than  increasing; 
the  Arabic  alone  remains.     But  this  does  not  prove 


91 

that  the  Arabic  is  the  youngest  and  an  outgrowth  of 
the  others. 

Gen.  31  :  47. — Aramaean  was  distinct  from  He- 
brew ;  e.  g.,  Laban  gives  the  place  mentioned  an 
Aramaean  name,  Jegar-sahadutha,  but  Jacob  gives  it 
a  Hebrew  name,  Gilead. 

Gen.  10  ;  26. — The  name  Almodad  has  the  prefix 
Sx,  the  Aramaic  article. 

In  reality  Arabic  is  the  oldest,  and  stands  in  rela- 
tion to  the  Semitic  as  Sanskrit  does  to  Indo-Euro- 
pean. Even  in  the  days  of  Moses,  Hebrew  had 
undergone  more  changes  than  Arabic  had  in  Mahom- 
et's time. 

For  purposes  of  comparison,  Arabic  is  more 
copious  and  living ;  Aramaic  is  more  closely  related 
to  Hebrew. 

All  these  languages  have  been  and  still  are  re- 
garded as  sacred,  as  Hebrew  among  the  Jews ; 
Aramaic  or  Syriac  among  oriental  Christians  ;  Ara- 
bic among  Mohammedans,  Turks,  and  as  in  the 
Koran.  aT^' 


LECTURE  III. 


4f^' 


The  Hebrew  Language,  or  the  original  language 
of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  Semitic  family  of  languages  included  three 
principle  branches. 

1.  Ai^mnaic,  including  the  Chaldee  and  Syriac. 

2.  Hebreiv, 

3.  Arabic. 

The  Hebrew  was  intermediate  between  the  other 
two  in  its  geographical  position  and  its  character. 

The  Hebrew,  as  a  language,  received  its  name 
from  the  Hebrew  people,  who  were  so  called  for  one 


92 

of  two  reasons  ;  the  word  'n:^;'  is  derived  either  (a) 
from  -i3;\  meaning  beyond,  and  appHed  to  one  be- 
longing to  the  region  beyond  the  Euphrates  east- 
ward, and  hence  appHcable  to  Abraham,  Gen.  14:  13. 
This  derivation  has  the  sanction  of  the  Septuagint, 
which  renders  the  word  6  neparyjg,  wdiich  means  ^Ae 
one  beyond,  (b)  It  may  be  derived  from  Eber,  (Gen. 
II  :  14,)  an  ancestor  of  Abraham  of  the  sixth  gene- 
ration. (Eber  in  English  has  no  aspiration,  but  the 
loss  of  the  aspirate  only  show^s  the  transition  from 
Hebrew  to  English.)  Gen.  10:  25  may  suggest  the 
reason  why  Eber  was  the  name  given  to  his  descend- 
ants. In  this  passage  Eber  called  his  son  Peleg, 
because  in  his  days  the  earth  was  divided.  Eber 
then  would  be  the  head  of  a  family  after  the  confu- 
sion of  tongues,  and  his  descendants  would  naturally 
have  his  name.  It  is  according  to  O.  T.  analogy 
that  a  race  should  be  named  from  an  individual  ; 
e.  g.,  Israelites,  Ammonites,  &c.  Whichever  deriva- 
tion be  approved,  the  term  Hebrezv  might  be  expect- 
ed to  embrace  other  races  than  the  Israelites,  and 
there  is  such  an  intimation  in  Num.  24  :  24.  Eber 
is  spoken  of  as  a  name  extending  over  a  number  of 
peoples  east  of  the  Euphrates,  It  has  been  claimed 
that  Gen.  10:  21,  shows  that  the  words  "  all  the 
children  of  Eber'  indicate  that  the  word  Hebrezv 
came  from  this  derivation.  This  is  not  conclusive, 
because  Eber  may  have  been  the  name  of  a  territory. 
In  ordinary  language,  the  term  Hebj^ewxsuseA  exclu- 
sively of  the  Israelites.  Abraham  was  a  Hebrew, 
but  the  children  of  Ketiirah,  or  Ishmael,  or  Esau, 
were  never  called  Hebrews.  Hebrew  was  their 
national  name,  Israel  was  their  domestic  and  theocratic 
name. 

From  the  reign    of  David,  the  name   Hebrew  is 
almost  lost,  and  Israel  came  to  be  used  for  the   ten 


93 

tribes  in  distinction  from  Judah.  In  the  A^.  T.  the 
word  Jezv  denoted  any  one  belonging  to  the  Jewish 
people  anywhere  ;  Hebi^eivs  were  those  jews  who 
dwelt  in  Palestine  and  spoke  the  Aramaic,  Those 
who  spoke  Greek  were  called  Grecians,  not   Greeks. 

The  liebreiv  langtcaoe  is  not  so  called  in  the  O. 
T.,  but  is  called  the  Jew's  language.  Isaiah  36  :  11. 
In  Is.  19:  18,  it  is  called  the  language  of  Canaan. 
The  first  application  of  the  name  Hebrew  to  a  lan- 
guage is  found  in  the  Prologue  to  Ecclesiasticus.  In 
the  N.  T.  and  Josephus,  the  term  "  Hebrew  lan- 
guage" is  used  both  for  the  Hebrew  proper  and  for 
Aramaean  ;  i.  e.,  the  tongue  spoken  by  the  Hebrew 
people  at  that  time.  Jno.  5:2;  Acts  21  :  40.  Later 
Jewish  writers  called  the  Hebrew  the  "  holy  tongue," 
in  distinction  from  the  Aramaean,  which  succeeded  it 
and  was  called  the  '' pi'ofane  tongue."  -7 

The  very  high  antiquity  of  the  Hebrew  is  shown 
from  the  antiquity  of  its  literature,  which  is  more 
ancient  than  that  of  any  other  language.  The  writ- 
ings of  Moses  preserve  antediluvian  fragments  ; — 
e.  g.,  that  of  Lamech.  In  these  and  in  proper  names, 
we  have  glimpses  of  roots  and  phrases  already 
obsolete  in  the  time  of  Moses.  The  Ta^guni  on 
Gen.  II  :  I,  says  that  the  Hebrew  was  the  primitive 
language  of  the  world.  Some  modern  Christian 
scholars  have  supported  this  view  for  the  following 
reasons  : — 

1.  That  the  proper  names  from  Adam  to  Babel 
are  derived  from  Eebrezi'  and  have  a  Hebrew  mean- 
ing. 

2.  The  fragments  from  Lamech  and  Noah  are 
certainly  Hebrew. 

3.  The  great  longevity  of  the  Patriarchs,  which 
was  such  that  Adam  was  contemporaneous  with 
Methusaleh,    and    he    with  Shem,    and    Shem   with 


94 

Abraham.     Thus  Adam  Is  joined  to  Abraham  by  two 
Hnks  or  generations. 

4.  It  is  not  probable  that  the  pious  people  took 
part  at  Babel.  Some  say  that  the  race  of  Shem 
were  not  there,  and  that  hence  their  language  was 
not  confused  and  therefore  not  destroyed.  This 
reasoning,  however,  is  not  conclusive,  for  it  assumes 
that  these  proper  names  and  fragments  have  been 
preserved,  not  only  as  to  their  exact  signification,  but 
in  their  ong'iml/orm,  and  have  neither  been  trans- 
lated nor  explained  in  reference  to  Hebrew  etymol- 
ogy. To  all  this  w^e  say: — (i)  The  names  which 
are  undeniably  foreign  to  the  Hebreiu  may  often  ad- 
mit of  a  satisfactory  Hebrew  explanation  ;  e.  g.,  in 
Ex.  2  :  10,  "  Moses"  is  an  Egyptian  name,  (meaning 
*'  drawn  out  of  the  water,")  but  may  be  explained 
from  the  Hebrew.  So  also  Pharaoh,  (meaning 
"  ruler  ;")  Ham,  as  in  Ps.  105  :  23  ;  Behemoth,  (a 
Coptic  word)  in  Job.  40  ;  15,  means  "hippopotamus." 
In  Gen.  41  :  43,  the  word  translated  "  bow  the  knee" 
(Shesh)  is  an  Egyptian  word,  yet  may  be  explained 
by  Hebrew  etymology.  But  it  would  not  do  to  say 
that  the  Hebj^eiu  was  the  language  of  Egypt.  (2) 
Proper  names  are  often  translated  from  their  origi- 
nal languages  into  another  language  ;  e.  g.,  On  (a 
city)  is,  in  Jer.  43  :  13,  called  Bethshemesh,  the 
"  house  of  the  sun,"  in  Greek  Heliopolis.  So  also 
No-Ammon  is  called  AtocTTio/ltg,  the  "  city  of  Jupiter." 
So  Erasmus,  Melancthon,  Luther,  etc.,  are  Greek 
translations  of  their  own  names  from  their  native 
languages.  (3)  Some  of  the  names  before  the  con- 
fusion at  Babel  cannot  be  thus  explained  ; — e.  g., 
Tubal-Cain,  Arphaxad.  (4)  Such  antediluvian  words 
may  have  been  appellatives  and  not  proper  names  ;- 
e.  g.,  Adam  (meaning  "  man,"i  is  connected  with 
riDiK  the  ground;  Eve  is  ''life!'  Abel  is  '' breath  T 
Cain  is  ''  possession"  and  '^  iveapon  ;"  Noah  is  "  rest!' 


/^L^^^^w  -WW-- <f^  f^^  Y    LyC 


<£  ^  L  /i  t-^       ^'  C<^ 


95 

We  need  not  conclude  from  these  that  the 
Hebrew  was  the  oriorinal  lanoruaoe  of  mankind.  No 
language  can  lay  claim  to  that  honor.  /:'-      '<a-..,-< 

Renan,  in  his  history  of  the  Semitic  language, 
says,  '•  since  more  than  a  thousand  years  B.  C.,  the 
Shemitic  roots  have  suffered  no  decay  or  injury. 
We  are  dealing  with  a  language  of  steel,  and  not 
with  a  worm-eaten  one.  The  Shemitic  language  has 
preserved  to  us  traces  of  the  primitive  tongue."  He 
says  that  "  the  grammatical  structure  savors  of  the 
infancy  of  the  human  intellect.  The  radicals  of  the 
modern  Arabic  correspond  with  the  Hebrew.  If  in 
3000  years  there  was  no  sensible  alteration,  can  we 
not  conclude  that  the  primitive  language  was  similar 
to  the  Hebrew  ?"  It  is  not  impossible  that  this  may 
be  true. 

Scientific  Philology  may  one  day  accord  to  the 
Hebrew  the  honor  of  being  the  original  language. 
The  Hebrew  leaves  evidence  of  being  the  language 
of  Palestine  because  their  word  for  IFesf  was  Yam, 
which  is  the  same  as  their  word  for  sea. 

Some  have  supposed  that  they  were    idolaters,  ^ 
because  they  used  the  plural  o'nSx.     This  is  unfound-     ^-^(^'-^'^^■^^ 
ed.     It  is  simply  the  plural  of  majesty.     Abraham  .^^^  ^^  f^^^ 
came    from  Aram  and  therefore  spoke  Ai*^iTi3ean.  *,  y^^yy^/^^ 
In   Deut.   26:5,  Syrian  is    used  for  Ara^iio^an.     In  '  f 

Gen.    ^147,    the    members    of  Abraham's   family  1>'<-<^  <^2    ' 
still  continued  to  speak  Aramcean. 

Is  the  Hebrew  language  throughout,  of  indistin- 
guishable character  or  diversified  like  others  ? 

1.  The  differences  are  due  to  diversities  of  "  dia- 
lects T 

2.  They  are  due  to  the  different  species  of  compo- 
sition. 

3.  Differences  also  arise  from  stcccessive  periods 
of  time. 


96 

We  will  consider  them  in  order. 

1.  Differences  due  to  Dialects. 

Some  have  gone  to  a  great  length  in  dividing  up 
the  dialects  of  the  Hebrew.  A  recent  German  writer 
gives  three  dialects.  ( i )  That  of  Eph-aim  on  the 
North  ;  (2)  of  Jtidah  in  the  middle,  (3)  of  Simeon  on 
the  South.  More  sober  critics  say  we  have  no  data 
for  this,  because  the  small  extent  of  Palestine  and 
the  frequent  assemblies  of  the  people  would  prevent 
the  formation  of  such  dialects.  There  were  undoubt- 
edly provincialisms,  as  there  are  now  in  the  United 
States.  E.  g.,  in  Judges  12:6;  Neh.  13  :  24.  In 
Judges  18:3,  the  Danites  are  said  to  have  known 
the  voice  of  the  Levite  by  his  dialect.  This  not  so. 
They  simply  recognized  it  as  the  voice  of  an  acquain- 
tance. 

In  the  N.  T.,  (Matt.  26  :  ^i)  we  read  that  Galli- 
leans  could  be    distinguished    by  their    speech. 

2.  The  differences  in  cofnpositio7i  are  wider. 
The  lang.  of  poetry  and  prose  differs  much  in  all 

languages.      Poetry  delights  in   rare  and   unprosaic 
and  bold  forms  of  speech.     E.  g.,  (i)  Rare  words: — 

13^,  word,  -  -»D}<  n-)9X  n^p 

X13,  to  oro  or  come,  -  T\r'</s 

u/'j?,  man,  =  -id;,  ^ds^ 

nt^;',  to  do,  =  S;:3 

;'£pj,  to  plant,  -  Sntj; 

K^  not,  =  S3 

n-onS-D,  war,  =  d'jp 

nni,  gold,  -  003 
(2,)   Words  used  in  a  different  sense  in  poetry. 
Attributives  often  substituted  for  nouns.      Ex.: 

t^^,,  sun,  -  n-sn,  hot. 

ni;,  moon,  _  npS,  white  or  pale. 

d'Stij  ^flozving),  used  poetically  for  streams. 

■T3J4   {mighty),        "  "  "    God. 


97 

(3.)  Peculiar  grajnmatical  forms  for  the  same 
word. 

D'Ti^x  =--  ni^K,  God. 
D'p;  =  n'l::;,  days. 
D^jty  ==  jiijtjf,  years. 

d'td;»  =  D'p-o;:,  nations  (by  resolution  of  the  Dagh- 
esh-forte.) 

^S>  =-  ^Sn:,  will    go,   (taking    the  form   ^^n  in  the 
future.) 

yp,  from,  -  'AP  ^5?  or  S;:  -  ^Sj<^  or  ^S;?^ 

The  suffix  y.  =  o:^       i;:  ^  n;^       3  --^  iroa       3  -  1:23 
(4.)    Some  peculiar  endings  or  terminatio7is. 
n^  =  n^  d;  =  j:  D  =  10  dh:  -  id; 

|\  =  ^n\.  or  'HI  y_  =  '3\ 

(5)  Peculiar  grc  mmatical  constructions.  The 
demonstrative  n.^  (or  poetical  n)  used  for  the  relative 
^^m.  The  relative  often  omitted,  also  the  article. 
Bold  ellipses. 

Many  of  these  forms  are  called  Arabisms  or 
Aramseisms  and  said  to  be  borrowed  from  the  Ara- 
m^an.  But  this  is  not  so.  They  seem  to  belong 
to  that  common  stock  of  all  the  Semitic  tongues  from 
which  the  Hebrew  and  Aramaean  and  the  Arabic  all 
came.  In  the  Hebrew  these  terms  passed  into  dis- 
use and  were  used  only  in  poetry,  while  they  were 
retained  in  the  Aramaean  or  Arabic. 

The  book  of  Isaiah  is  almost  all  poetry,  Daniel 
almost  all  prose.  The  Prophetic  style  occupies  an 
intermediate  place  between  poetry  and  prose.  In 
the  books  of  Moses  we  find  both  poetry  and  prose. 
In  Deut,  we  find  the  prophetic  style.  \^    Q — ^ 

3.  Differences  arising  from  successive  periods  of 
time. 

The  Hebrew  language  underwent  a  great  change 
between  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment.    The  most  obvious  division  is  into  two  periods. 


98 

The  point  of  separation  between  these  was  shortly 
before  the  Babylonian  exile. 

(i)  From  the  time  of  Moses  to  the  time  of  Isaiah 
the  language  suffered  little  change.  In  the  writings 
of  the  later  prophets,  (Jeremiah,  Zephaniah,  etc.,) 
there  is  a  manifest  decline,  produced  by  a  large  in- 
flux of  foreign  words,  especially  Aramaean.  The 
Jews  were  brought  into  contact  with  these  nations. 
Esther,  Daniel,  Ezekiel,  Nehemiah,  and  Ezra,  exhibit 
a  striking  contrast  in  purity.  The  Book  of  Chroni- 
cles was  written  later  than  Kings,  and  hence  is  more 
corrupt.  Ezekiel  shows  the  greatest  number  of 
varieties  in  form  and  the  greatest  variety  of  anoma- 
lies, which  exhibit  an  actual  deterioration  ol  the  lan- 
guages. In  the  prophets  subsequent  to  the  exile, 
Haeeai,  Zechariah  and  Malachi,  the  lanenaore  is  less 
corrupt,  and  there  is  an  advance  to  the  former  purity 
and  correctness  of  style.  The  stationary  character 
of  the  language  during  the  former  period,  (there 
being  no  change  for  800  years,)  is  made  the  ground 
of  an  objection  to  the  antiquity  of  the  Pentateuch. 
To  this  we  reply 

(a)  that  it  is  the  character  of  all  of  the  Semitic 
laneua^es  to  be  fixed  and  stationary.  All  the  cus- 
toms  and  habits  and  even  the  names  of  places,  are 
unchanging,  in  some  cases  the  names  being  the  same 
now  as  in  the  time  of  Abraham  and  Joshua.  The 
Syriac  and  Arabic  also  have  the  same  permanence. 
Chinese  scholars  say  that  the  writings  of  Confucius 
(550  B.  C)  do  not  differ  in  language  from  the  best 
writers  of  the  present  time  in  China. 

(b)  The  circumstances  favored  this  preservation 
of  language,  (a)  because  they  had  little  intercourse 
with  other  languages,  separation  being  required  by 
their  laws  ;  and  (/?)  the  Canaanites  also  spoke  the 
Semitic  language. 


99 

(c)  The  booses  of  Moses  containing  the  civil  and 
rehgious  code  served  to  fix  the  language,  as  the 
Koran  has  the  Arabic,  and  Luther's  Bible  the  Ger- 
ma7i,  and  the  English  Bible  the  English.  They  also 
furnished  a  model  of  writing,  as  Homer  did  to  the 
Greeks.  The  language  of  Moses  would  often  be 
better  fixed,  even  after  the  spoken  language  had 
itself  changed. 

(d)  The  Hebrew  was  not  wholly  stationary  dur- 
ing this  long  periods  There  are  some  changes ; 
e.  g.,  the  third  feminine  pronoun  «^n  in  the  Books 
of  Moses  is  changed  to  N-n  in  Isaiah  ;  -»;:;  is  used  in 
the  Pentateuch  to  denote  either  a  boy  or  girl, — in 
Isaiah  it  was  used  with  \\\^  fejuinine  ending  n^n  for 
a  girl.  The  Plural  is  used  for  both  always.  Some 
words  and  phrases  are  peculiar  to  the  Pentateuch 
and  never  occur  afterwards  ;  others  vanish  until  the 
later  writings  of  the  O.  T.  ;  others,  which  Moses 
used  in  prose,  occur  again  later  only  in  poetry.  In 
I.  Sam.  9  :  9,  mention  is  made  of  a  change  in  a  word, 
viz.,  seer  as  changed  to  prophet.  Some  say  that  in 
Exodus  6  :  3,  God  revealed  a  new  name  of  Himself 
to  Moses.  This  was  not  a  new  name,  but  was  meant 
to  show  a  new  phase  of  his  character. 

(2.)  Many  new  words  and  phrases,  and  a  more 
frequent  use  of  vowel  letters,  i.  e.,  '' scriptio plena',' 
as  distinguished  from  "  scriptio  defectal'  appear  in  the 
later  books,  and  also  the  adoption  of  genuine  Ara- 
maisms. 

Examples  of  new  phrases  :  n^Sr^r?  with  the  plural 
construct  later  noS-D ;  D'jan  onS,  bread  of  the  presence, 
shew  bread,  is  in  later  books  r\^":^.r.,'?n  uryi.  (from  n;?"^.>:j? 
a  row,  \\x,  to  arrange).  God  of  Heaven,  is  later 
hovah  of  Hosts. 

Thus  the  decay  of  the  Hebrew  is  not  always 
distinguishable  from  poetic  license.     For  this  reason 


100 

the  character  of  the  Hebrew  in  any  book  is  not  a 
criterion  of  its  date  or  age. 

Did  the  written  Hebrew  differ  from  the  spoken? 
It  may  have  to  some  extent,  as  in  Eng.  The  latest 
books  of  the  O.  T.  represent  a  purer  style  than  could 
have  been  current  among  the  people  at  that  time, 
and  was  formed  from  a  careful  study  of  the  ancient 
models. 

When  did  the  Hebrew  cease  to  be  spoken?  i. 
The  Talmud  and  the  Jewish  grammarians  and  some 
Christian  scholars  say  that  the  Hebrew  was  displaced 
by  the  Aramcean  at  the  time  of  the  Babylonish  exile, 
though  it  long  continued  to  be  known  by  the  old 
men  who  had  learned  it  in  Palestine,  and  also  by  the 
learned  men.  The  young  generation  spoke  Ara- 
m^an  and  knew  nothincr  of  the  Hebrew.  2.  It  is 
thought  by  some  modern  scholars  that  the  Hebrew, 
though  corrupted  by  the  exile,  continued  to  be  the 
language  for  400  years  after  the  exile,  that  is,  until 
the  Maccabees  and  the  Syrian  domination.  These 
advocates  are  influenced  mainly  by  the  hypothesis 
that  some  of  the  books  of  the  O.  T.  were  written 
during  this  period.  Heh.  13  :  24  is  no  proof  that  the 
Hebrew  was  unchanged  as  a  spoken  language.  Is. 
36:11  does  not  prove  that  the  Jews  still  spoke  He- 
brew ;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  does  Neh.  8  :  8  prove 
that  they  had  given  up  Hebrew  and  adopted  Ara- 
msBan.  They  say  that  the  passage  shows  that  the 
Levites  translated  \\\(t  book  of  the  law  ;  this  is  not  so, 
but  our  version  is  correct,  where  we  read  that  they 
read  the  law  "  distinctly,"  with  explanations.  And 
a  captivity  of  only  70  years  was  too  brief  a  time  for 
them  to  give  up  their  own  language  and  adopt 
another,  especially  as  only  a  part  of  the  people  were 
carried  away,  and  the  remainder  were  not  put 
among  Aramasans.     The  Prophets  too,  in  the  later 


101 

books,  after  the  exile,  would  not  have  used  a  lan- 
guage unknown  to  the  people.  The  deterioration 
of  the  language  began  before  the  exile,  though  it 
was  accelerated  by  that  exile.  The  Chaldee  was 
fani.liir,  as  seen  from  Daniel  and  Ezra. 

The  chanofe  was  a  (gradual  transformation.  We 
cannot  tell  the  exact  date  of  the  change  any  more 
than  we  can  tell  that  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  into  En- 
glish, or  of  the  Latin  into  Italic.  But  it  could  not 
have  been  long  after  the  exile. 

Character  of  the  Hebrew. 

There  are  no  adequate  data  for  estimating  or 
ascertaining  the  copiousness  of  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage. Gesenius  gives  5642  words  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible,  with  about  500  roots.  But  these  are  only 
those  found  in  the  O.  T.,  and  hence  are  not  the  en- 
tire vocabulary  of  the  language. 

SJiidtans,  living  in  the  last  century,  calculated  the 
number  of  the  combinations  of  the  letters  of  the 
alphabet  into  triliteral  roots,  finding  12000  of  them, 
and  to  each  of  these  he  assigned  30  derivates  ;  hence 
he  makes  360,000  words,  not  reckoning  quadrilite- 
rals  and  their  derivatives. 

This  principle  is  false.  The  number  of  words  in 
any  language  does  not  depend  on  the  number  of 
roots,  nor  upon  the  number  of  possible  combinations. 
The  stock  of  words  will  not  go  beyond  the  necessi- 
ties of  a  people.  Ideas  and  objects  unknown  would 
of  course  have  no  words.  Simple  agricultural  peo- 
ples, like  the  Hebrews,  knowing  little  of  the  outside 
world,  and  uniform  in  their  modes  of  life,  would  not 
have  a  very  extensive  circle  of  ideas,  and  hence  of 
words.  Yet  the  language  shows  an  affluence  of 
synonyms.  E.  g.,  there  were  eight  terms  for  dark- 
ness, seven  names  for  the  lion,  four  for  the  ox,  eleven 


102 

for  the  different  kinds  of  rain.  These  and  other  in- 
stances show  a  great  richness  and  profuseness  of 
terms  and  a  careful  observation  and  nicety  of  dis- 
tinction between  objects  and  a  close  study  of  nature, 
etc.  This  quality  is  favored  by  the  parallelisms  of 
their  poetry. 

The  Hebrew  is  richest  in  religious  words,  e.  g., 
there  are  fourteen  expressions  iox  confidejice  in  God, 
nine  iov  forgiveness  of  sifts,  twenty-five  for  xh&observ- 
ance  of  the  Law.     ^'^  ?:i^,.>.    //,'•  -yi.-(^.^  <U4^\a 

The  structure  of  the  Hebrew  language  is  such  as 
to  produce  an  economy  of  words  and  roots.  A 
small  number  of  each  do  a  larfje  amount  of  service. 
The  paucity  of  adjectives  is  compensated  for  by  the 
distinctions  in  abstract  nouns.  The  different  species 
of  the  same  verb  express  different  ideas  ;  e.  g.. 
Come  and  bring  are  expressed  by  different  species 
of  the  same  verb ;  so  also  to  eat  and  to  feed ;  to 
learn  and  to  tcacJi ;  to  go  and  to  lead. 

There  were  also  modifications  of  meaning  by  the 
construction  of  the  sentences,  e.  g.,  nj^^  to  see,  with 
different  forms  has  different  constructions,  and  with 
prepositions  can  mean  to  see,  look,  enjoy,  despise,  live, 
choose,  provide,  visit,  leant  ft  orn,  aim  at,  respect,  care 
for,  abide  for,  know,  appear,  show,  perceive.  Nouns 
from  the  same  root, — prophet,  vision,  min  or,  forin, 
sight,  vtdtttie  (i.  e.,  keen  sight.) 

Some  lost  roots  in  the  Hebrew  have  left  their 
traces,  but  can  now  only  be  explained  by  the  i\rabic. 
The  great  number  of  (XTtaJ  Xeyo^Eva  suggests  that  a 
ereat  number  of  words  have  been  lost.  The  Arabic 
most  frequently  preserved  the  primitive  grammati- 
cal forms,  but  the  Hebrew  retained  the  primary 
meanings  of  words  the  longest.  The  Arabic  has  the 
most  verbal  simplicity,  Hebrew  next,  Aramaeic  least. 
In  Hebrew  the  relics  of  some  independent  species 


1-   "a 


i~D 


f\M^ 


103 

are  found,  which  in  the  other  two  languages  appear 
rarely,  and  as  imperfect  anomalous  forms  ;  e.  g., 
plural  endings,  paragogic  letters,  of  which  the  Arabic 
shows  the  formation  and  connection.  The  primary 
significations  of  words  are  retained  in  the  Hebrew, 
when  in  the  cognate  languages  it  has  given  place  to 
a  derivative  and  secondary  sense  ;  e.  g.,  no  in  He- 
brew always  means  what,  though  sometimes  used  as 
a  negative  ; — in  the  Arabic,  it  is  a  negative.  r\w  in 
Hebrew  means  to  untie  ;  in  Arabic  it  means  to  dwell, 
to  put  up  for  the  night,  (from  the  idea  of  untying  the 
beasts  of  burden.  n;'n  to  wander,  in  Hebrew  ;  in 
Arabic  and  Aramaeic  means  to  be  idolaters,  (i.  e.,  to 
wander  in  a  religious  sense.)  ^Sn  =/^^^  in  Hebrew; 
in  Arabic,  to  perish.  t\w  in  Hebrew  means  to 
chanoe  ;  in  Arabic  and  Aramaeic  means  to  chano^e 
the  imderstanding,  to  be  mad,  deranged,  •n::^?  to  say, 
in  Arabic  means  to  say  with  atithority,  to  command 
(^English  Emir.)  ^33  in  Hebrew  means  to  coz>er  ; 
in  Arabic,  to  cover  the  truth,  to  disbelieve.  Hence 
is  derived  the  name  of  the  Kaffir  (in  Africa,)  who 
does  not  believe  the  Koran.  An  exception  is  the 
Hebrew  to  miss  the  mark,  to  sin,  which  in  Arabic 
means  the  former  only. 

Most  words  borrowed  from  the  Syriac  and  other 
languages  are  connected  with  idolatry.  The  word 
which  in  Syriac  means  to  worship,  (-ijo)  in  Hebrew 
means  to  worship  idols.  Syriac  to  supplicate,  {^^2) 
in  Hebrew  means  to  use  enchantment.  The  Syriac 
for  priests,  d^od,  in  Hebrew  means  priests  of  idols. 

The  Hebrew  contains  a  very  few  words  not  of 
Shemitic  extraction.  In  the  Pentateuch;  (i)  there 
are  several  Egyptian  words,  especially  names  of  ob- 
jects, persons,  places,  e.  g.,  -ij<:  river  (always  referring 
to  the  Nile,)  ^^^i  bulrushes,  r\2T)  a  box,  (=the  ark  in 
which  Moses  was  put,)  n3^j<  an  ephah,  nj?-)£i  Pharaoh, 


104 

^-)3X  bend  the  knee.  (2)  In  the  later  books  there  are 
a  few  names  of  Indian  objects  ;  there  are  some  San- 
scrit words,  e.  g.,  ophir,  nard,  delHan,  aloes,  ivory, 
apes,  peacocks, — which  show  the  extent  of  country 
to  which  the  Phenician  navigators  had  penetrated. 
In  Esther  i  :  6,  the  word  for  cotton  or  linen  (dd^d) 
was  a  Sanscrit  word.  (3)  Persian  words  were  intro- 
duced during  the  Persian  rule.  In  Ezra,  Nehemiah, 
Esther,  David,  arid'  Chronicles  ;  e.  g..  Satrap  ;  also 
names  of  monarchs  and  coins,  as  darix,  dram  (Ez. 
8  :  27.)  Xerxes,  Cyrus,  Haman  ;  also  the  word  for 
crimson,  red  of  worms,  (coming  to  us  through  the 
Arabic.)  Pleasure  ground  Bn^a,  paradise,  in  Cant.  4  : 
13.  (4)  There  are  a  few  names  of  musical  instruments 
in  Dan.  borrowed  from  the  Greek.  A  number  of 
words  are  transferred  from  the  Hebrew  or  Phenician 
into  the  Greek  and  from  thence  into  the  Western 
languages,  (a)  by  Phenicians,  (b)  by  Christians,  (c) 
by  modern  Jews.  Such  words  are  hyssop,  balsam, 
copper,  ebony,  jasper,  alphabet,  amen,  ephod,  halle- 
lujah, cummin,  cinnamon,  sapphire,  seraph,  cherub, 
caballa,  jubilee.  Sabbath.  From  the  modern  Jews 
we  have  Rabbi,  Sanhedrim,  Targum,  Mishna.  The 
Hebrew  yielded  to  the  Aramseic  after  the  exile,  yet 
both  were  used  and  studied  by  the  more  learned. 
The  Aramaeic  became  the  popular,  and  the  Hebrew 
the  learned  language.  The  Mishna,  the  oldest  por- 
tion of  the  Talmud,  is  in  corrupted  Hebrew.  The 
more  modern  portion  of  the  Talmud  is  in  Aramaeic, 
the  dialect  of  the  people.  From  the  iith  Century 
onward  there  is  a  decided  tendency  to  return  to  the 
Hebrew.  It  is  still  a  learned  language  among  Jew- 
ish scholars. 


J  A 


..^^    ^/^ 


105 

I.  Shape  of  the  Letters,  and  the  Origin  of  the 
Vowels  of  the  Hebrew  Language. 

All  the  Hebrew  manuscripts  which  we  possess 
are  written  in  the  present  square  character,  but  on 
Jewish  coins  supposed  to  belong  to  the  time  of  the 
Maccabees,  and  in  the  books  of  the  Samaritans,  we 
find  a  round  character  similar  to  the  Phenician  and 
Samaritan. 

Is,  the?i,  the.  prese?tt  square  characte}^  the  original 
one  ? 

This  was  a  subject  of  dispute  in  the  17th  century 
between  the  Buxtorfs  and  Capellus.  Buxtorf,  a 
Professor  at  Basle,  together  with  his  son  and  succes- 
sor, maintained  that  the  square  letters  were  the 
original  ones.  Capellus,  Professor  at  Somer,  first 
opposed  this  view.  The  Buxtorfs  assumed  that 
'*  there  were  two  separate  characters  in  use,  one  the 
sacred  letter  found  in  the  Bible,  the  other,  the  secular 
letter  used  in  business  transactions.  This  latter  one 
is  what  was  found  on  the  coins.  Durinor  the  exile 
at  Babylon,  the  Priests  kept  up  a  knowledge  of  the 
sacred  writing,  but  the  common  secular  dialect  fell 
into  disuse,  while  those  Jews  who  were  left  in  Pales- 
tine had  only  the  secular  character,  because  they  had 
neglected  the  reading  of  the  Law,  and  the  Samari- 
tans borrowed  their  characters  from  them.  When 
Ezra  returned  to  Palestine,  he  restored  the  old  sacred 
character."     This  hypothesis  they  supported 

I.  By  the  analogy  of  other  nations.  The  Egyp- 
tians had  a  threefold  character,  (a)  The  Hiero- 
glyphic ;  (b)  The  Hieratic,  or  sacred  ;  (c)  The  De- 
motic, or  popular.  The  Persians  used  different 
methods  of  writing  for  history,  poetry  and  letters. 
The  Turks  had  also  a  threefold  character. 


106 

2.  From  Isaiah  8  :  i.  They  say  that  the  phrase 
"  a  man's  pen"  refers  to  the  secular,  ordinary,  or 
common  character. 

3.  From  a  passage  in  Irenaeus,  who  speaks  of  a 
Sacerdotal  character  in  use  among  die  Hebrews. 

The  verse  in  Isaiah  merely  means  to  write  plainly. 
Irenaeus  is  really  no  authority  on  this  subject,  because 
he  was  itjnorant  of  the  Hebrew  lanouage,  as  other 
mistakes  made  by  him  clearly  show.  The  argument 
from  analogy  would  illustrate  the  fact  if  proved,  but 
is  no  proof  in  itself.  This  hypothesis  is  now  aban- 
doned. 

Gesenius  says  that  the  secular  character  w^as  that 
in  use  by  Judah  and  Israel  until  the  Babylonish 
Captivity,  and  then  it  was  preserved  by  the  ten  tribes 
and  the  Samaritans,  while  Judah  adopted  the  charac- 
ter of  their  Babylonian  captors,  i.  e.,  the  square 
character. 

This  w^ould  account  for  the  early  traditions  and 
the  inscriptions  found  at  Palmyra.      But, 

(i)  This  does  not  account  for  the  use  of  the  coin 
letter  so  late  as  the  time  of  the  Maccabees. 

(2)  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  square 
letter  ever  was  used  at  Babylon. 

It  is  now  setded  that  all  the  Semitic  families,  as 
to  their  alphabets,  are  related  to  the  old  Phenician, 
which  was  the  original  letter,  and  that  from  it  came 
that  Hebrew  character  which  was  used  on  the  coins 
at  the  time  of  the  Maccabees.  The  square  charac- 
ter succeeded  this  slowly  and  gradually  by  succes- 
sive changes  through  a  long  period  of  time.  The 
change  was  similar  to  the  change  in  Greek  from 
uncials  to  cursives.  The  connecting  links  between 
the  alphabets  w^e  can  trace  by  means  of  inscripdons 
at  Palmyra  and  in  Egypt.     When  the  change  took 


107 

place  cannot  now  be  determined.     It  must  have  been 
before  the  3d  or  4th  Century,  A.  D. 

Quotations  from  Origen  and  Jerome  show  that 
the  Hebrew  character,  in  their  day,  was  the  same  as 
in  ours.  Jerome  says  that  the  word  nin^  was  read  by 
the  Greeks  as  if  it  were  nini.  This  shows  that 
the  square  characters  were  in  use  at  that  time.  The 
change  probably  took  place  before  the  time  of 
Christ,  as,  in  Matt.  5:18,  '7W,"  (i.  e.,  Yodh,)  would 
seem  to  indicate  ;  for  in  the  old  character  the  ^  was 

as  large  as  any  of  the  letters,  but  in  the  square  char- ^ 

acter  it  is  the  smallest.  0 

If,  in  examining  the  Septuagint,  it  could  be  found 
that  there  had  been  errors  of  transcription,  such  as 


confounding  -1  and  n,  it  would  show  that  the 


sqitare 


character  was  used  at  that  time.  No  satisfactory 
results,  however,  have  ever  been  obtained  from  this 
examination.  We  must  assume  that  the  change  took 
place  between  the  time  of  the  Maccabees  and  the 
time  of  Christ. 

This  question  has  often  been  mixed  up  with  other 
questions.  It  has  been  treated  as  if  it  affected  the 
Bible  and  its  text.  Capellus  said  that  the  Hebrew 
text  of  the  O.  T.  was  full  of  mistakes,  and  needed 
constant  revision.  The  Buxtorfs  held  extreme  views 
in  the  opposite  direction.  They  said  that  the  text  of 
the  Bible  had  letters  of  the  same  shape  in  which  it 
was  given.  To  say  that  the  Samaritans  had  kept 
the  old  alphabet  and  that  the  Jews  lost  it,  seems  to 
be  admitting  the  superiority  of  the  Samaritan  over 
the  Heb.  Bible.  The  form  of  the  letters,  however, 
does  not  affect  the  purity  of  the  text.  — 

II.  This  question  was  subsidiary  to  another,  re-      '^f^ 
lating  to  the  antiquity  mid  authority  of  the  vowels  and 
accents. 


108 

The  Rabbins  in  the  middle  ages  heM  that  the 
vowels  were  either  an  integral  part  of  the  text,  or 
that  they  were  divinely  sanctioned  as  added  by  Ezra. 
/^.  c<^  Elias  Levita  held  that  the  vowels  were  added 
afterwards  by  the  Jewish  grammarians  at  Tiberias. 
The  elder  Buxtorf  replied,  trying  to  show  that  the 
vowels  were  not  made  by  grammarians.  Levita's 
arguments  found  favor  with  Capellus,  who  wrote  them 
out  and  strengthened  them,  and  then  sent  the  MS. 
to  the  elder  Buxtorf,  who  commented  on  it  and  re- 
turned it,  confessing  the  difficulties  of  the  case,  and 
advising  him  not  to  publish  it.  It  was  printed,  how- 
ever, in  1624,  and  Buxtorf  was  expected  to  reply  to 
it,  but  did  not  do  so.  His  son,  however,  in  1648, 
published  a  work  which  was  (i)  a  refutation  of  Ca- 
pellus, and  (2)  a  proof  of  the  antiquity  of  the  vowel- 
points. 

His  views  were  adopted  by  the  orthodox  party  in 
Europe  and  England.  It  Avas  even  made  an  article 
of  faith  in  one  of  the  Swiss  Confessions  of  Faith,  that 
the  voivels  d^nd points  of  the  Bible  were  inspired.  John 
Owen  attacked  Capellus,  and  thought  that  it  would 
impair  the  truth  of  the  Bible  to  believe  that  such  an 
important  matter  as  the  vowels  was  fixed  by  unbe- 
lievers, and  by  men  who  as  Jews  were  under  a  curse, 
and  were  the  murderers  of  Christ.  It  is  now  admit- 
ted that  the  vowels  are  not  ancient.  We  may  infer 
this, 

1.  Because  the  minuteness  of  their  notation  im- 
plies that  the  Hebrew  w^as  not  a  living  tongue  when 
they  were  introduced. 

2.  From  the  analogy  of  kindred  languages.  The 
Syriac  and  Samaritan  have  no  vowel  points,  nor  did 
the  Phenicians  have  any,  nor  were  any  found  on  the 
coins  or  on  the  monuments.  The  Arabic  in  the 
Koran  has  a  few  vowels,  elsewhere  none. 


109 

3-  Tradition  among  the  Rabbins,  that  the  vowels 
were  handed  down  orally  until  the  time  of  Ezra, and 
that  he  reduced  them  to  writing.  They  are  ascribed 
to  him  probably  in  order  that  they  may  have  the 
sanction  of  inspiration. 

4.  The  Synagogue  Rolls,  which  are  gready 
esteemed,  have  no  vowels  ;  a  fact  hard  to  account 
for,  if  vowels  formed  an  original  part  of  the  text. 

5.  The  different  readings  of  K'ri  and  K'thibh  all 
refer  to  the  consonants  and  not  to  the  vowels.  And 
yet  the  vowels  are  much  more  open  to  dispute  and 
variation. 

6.  The  present  vowel  system  was  not  in  use  at 
the  time  of  the  Septuagint,  as  proved  by  its  transla- 
tion of  some  words  in  a  manner  consistent  with  the 
consonants,  but  not  with  the  vowels,  as  we  now  have 
them. 

Wheii  zverc  they  introduced?     We  notice  "ly  UTr^ 

(i.)  That  the  Jewish  grammarians  from  the  be-  / 
ginning  of  the  i  ith  century  had  the  points,  and  did 
not  know  but  that  they  had  always  existed,  a;  A  table 
of  various  readings  made  in  1034  refers  to  the  vowels 
and  points  exclusively,  and  thus  we  know  that  they 
existed  at  that  time. 

(2.)  The  Septuagint  and  Josephus  do  not  appear 
to  have  them.  Origen,  in  his  Hexapla,  gives  a  pro- 
nunciation which  does  not  agree  with  the  vowel- 
points.  Jerome  was  probably  not  acquainted  with 
the  present  vowel  system.  By  vowels,  he  meant 
vowel  letters  ;  and  by  accent,  he  meant  vocal  utter- 
ance. It  is  doubtful  whether  the  Tabnud  of  the  5th 
century  recognizes  them.(O)  The  Masora  does  contain 
the  names  of  nearly  all  the  vowels,  although  the  K'ri 
and  K'thibh  relate  to  the  consonants.  The  general 
conclusion  is  that  the  points  were  introduced  by  Jew- 
ish orrammarians  between  the  5th  and  loth  centuries, 


\  v^- 


clAM^ 


110 

with  the  intention  of  preventing  all  ambiguity  of 
pronunciation  and  meaning. 

Gesenius  sets  the  time  to  be  between  the  6th 
and  8th  centuries.  This  would  bring  us  to  about 
the  time  when  the  Arabic  and  Syriac  vowels  were 
first  used.  Some  now  began  to  give  up  all  authority 
of  the  points,  as  being  entirely  of  human  origin. 
Others  went  to  the  opposite  extreme.  Careful 
examination  orives  us  a  medium  crround.  The  siens 
are  Masorelic,  but  the  sounds  are  not.  There  was 
no  Rabbinical  trifling  with  the  text,  but  preserved  a 
rigid  accuracy  in  its  pronunciation,  besides  giving 
traditional  commentary  on  the  text.  By  careful  no- 
tation they  have  given  us  the  sounds  just  as  exact 
tradition  had  given  those  sounds  to  them.  They 
had  good  facilities,  and  were  accurate  and  w^orthy  of 
our  trust. 

History  of  the  Study  of  the  Hebrew.  It 
may  be  divided  into  two  periods.  i.  Among  the 
Jews.  (a)  From  the  introduction  of  the  Masorelic 
System  to  the  loth  century.  (b)  From  the  intro- 
duction of  the  Gra77i7Jiatica/  Sysii^m.  in  the  loth  cen- 
tury to  the  Reformation.      2.   Among  Christians. 

1.  Among  the  Jeivs.  Schools  were  established 
in  Jerusalem  as  early  as  the  time  of  Christ,  for  teach- 
ing the  Scriptures  and  Traditions.  Such  were  those 
of  Hillel,  Gamaliel,  and  Shamai.  After  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem,  there  were  schools  also  at  Tiberias 
and  Babylonia.  There  was  no  systematic  or  scientific 
study  of  the  language,  but  an  adherence  to  ancient  tra- 
ditions. The  very  letters  of  the  Bible  were  reverenced. 
Even  a  letter  which  happened  to  be  written  smaller 
or  larger  was  retained  in  the  text.  Even  the  number 
of  the  letters  was  known.  To  these  scholars  we  owe 
the  Masora,  which  are  the  notes  and  the  vowels,  and 
the  Talmud  and  their  Targums  or  translations. 


^ 


i^t-tl^-V 


Ill 

II.  Among  Christians.  The  Fathers  of  the  Church, 
except  the  Syrian  Christians,  were  mostly  ignorant 
of  Hebrew,  but  Origen  in  the  3ci  century  and  Jerome 
in  the  4th  century  were  Hebrew  scholars.  In  the 
loth  century  the  schools  were  transferred  to  Spain. 
There,  under  Arabic  rule,  they  flourished  for  a  long 
period.  There  were  schools  In  Toledo,  Barcelona, 
Grenada,  and  thus,  stimulated  by  Arab  grammarians. 
Hebrew  was  's,Xx\di\(tdi  g7'annnatically  and  scientifically . 
Grammars  and  Lexicons  were  written  which  still 
exist  in  MS.  in  European  libraries.  Especially  note- 
worthy among  these  scholars  were  Kimchi  and  his 
two  sons.  The  work  of  David,  the  younger  son, 
which  he  called  "Perfection,"  was  that  used  by  the 
Reformers,  and  formed  the  basis  of  similar  works  till 
very  lately.  ,  .  y     ,       . 

From  the  time  of  Jerome  till  the  i6th  century,  '^'^  '-^-i>/^ 
the  study  of  Hebrew  was  almost  entirely  neglected 
by  the  Christian  Church.  Charlemagne  tried  to 
revive  the  study  of  the  language,  and  the  Council  of 
Vienna,  131 1,  voted  annuities  for  professors  of  He- 
brew in  Vienna.  But  the  resolution  was  not  carried 
Into  effect.  Raymond  Martini  studied  Hebrew  to  use 
it  against  the  Jews,  and  Nicholas  De  Lyra  studied  it 
to  facilitate  the  exposition  of  the  Old  Testament. 
The  Romish  Church  distrusted  the  spirit  of  the 
Reformers,  but  the  revival  of  letters  called  attention 
to  the  Hebrew  In  spite  of  this  opposition.  The  Rab- 
bins also  were  jealous  of  Its  popularity,  and  would 
not  give  instruction  except  at  exorbitant  prices. 

The  first  Hebrew  Gram?jtar  issued  by  a  Christ- 
ian was  made  by  Conrad  Pelican  in  1503.  He  was 
a  monk  at  Tubingen,  and  at  that  time  was  only  22 
years  old.  He  derived  most  of  his  knowledge  from 
a  Hebrew  Bible,  aided  by  a  Latin  translation. 


112 

John  Reuchlin  was  really  the  father  of  Hebrew 
literature  and  learning  in  the  Christian  Church.  He 
published  in  1506  a  grammar  and  dictionary  called 
•'  Hebrew  Rudiments."  closely  following  the  plan 
introduced  by  Kimchi. 

Hebrew,  from  that  time  onward,  has  received 
marked  attention,  and  when  the  Church  declared  the 
Scriptures  in  the  original  the  only  rule  of  faith  and 
practice,  there  was  a  new  incentive  to  study  it. 

The  methods  of  study  underwent  several  changes. 

I.  The  Traditional  School,  in  which  everything 
was  settled  by  tradition,  even  as  regarded  the  mean- 
ings of  words  and  the  construction  of  sentences,  etc. 
The  Buxtorfs  were  representatives  of  this  school.  It 
was  the  only  practical  method  in  early  times.  It  was 
partial  and  one-sided,  and  neglected  other  important 
means.  It  was  too  narrow  in  its  views,  seekincr  for 
information  only  in  Jewish  Targums,  and  not  in  the 
Septuagint. 

II.  The  Comparative  School.  The  Hebrew  was 
compared  with  the  cognate  languages,  Arabic  and 
Syriac.  The  Grammars  and  Lexicons  were  a  com- 
parison of  the  various  Shemitic  dialects.  This  may 
be  called  the  Dutch  School.  The  best  early  Gram- 
mar was  the  Heptaglot  Grammar  and  Lexicon  of 
Edmund  Castell  of  Cambridge,  in  Hebrew,  Persian, 
Aramaic,  Arabic,  etc.  Schultans  of  Leyden  applied 
his  knowledge  of  Arabic  to  elucidate  the  Hebrew. 
He  was  the  best  representative  of  this  school.  This 
school  was  too  one-sided  on  the  other  extreme.  No 
regard  was  paid  to  the  Syriac,  nor  to  Rabbinical 
authority  and  tradition,  and  too  much  to  the  Arabic. 
Hence  many  imaginary  significations  are  found  in 
their  works. 

III.  The  Idiomatic  School  rejected  all  external 
helps,  and  substituted  a   minute  examination  of  the 


g  i  ucc  y  ^  .^  cu^<^  ^^t.^e-.c_-^ 


113 

text,  context,  and  parallel  passages  of  the  Scriptures 
themselves.  But  It  also  was  partial.  It  said  all 
triliteral  roots  were  originally  biliteral,  and  even  tried 
to  give  each  individual  letter  of  the  biliteral  a  distinct 
meaninor,  from  the  form,  etc. 

This  method  led  to  a  more  accurate  study  of  the 
peculiarities  of  the  Hebrew,  but  was  not  on  the  whole 
a  good  method.  All  these  schools  gave  a  foundation 
for 

IV.  The  Comprehensive  School,  including  all  the 
former  methods.  The  modern  scholars  adopt  this 
school.  Gesenius  is  its  best  representative.  His 
Lexicon,  however,  is  not  faultless.  There  are  a  few 
QLTiaJ  'k^yQyisvd  whose  meanings  are  not  known  ;  e.  g., 
the  names  of  some  of  the  unclean  beasts  in  Lev.  1 1, 
and  some  terms  used  in  Is.  3.  These  may  hereafter  be  1  %  t>^  1^ 
explained.     They  are  not  important  words  however. 

Early    Versions.  /"^ptr  6<y   /6. 

There  arey^/zr  versions  of  the  O.  T.  which  are 
ancicjit  and  immediate.  By  an  immediate  version,  we 
mean  one  made  directly  from  the  original  and  not 
from  any  pre-existing  versions,  which  would  be  a 
mediate  version.  By  an  ancient  version.  In  a  technical 
sense.  Is  meant  one  made  prior  to  the  Masorites. 
To  be  of  any  critical  authority.  It  should  be  both 
ancient  and  immediate.  A  mediate  version  may  be 
authority  in  reference  to  that  from  which  It  was  tak- 
en.    These  four  versions  are : 

1.  The  Greek  Septuagint. 

2.  '*    Chaldee  Targums. 

3.  "    Syrian  Peshlto. 

4.  "    Latin  Vulgate. 

Each  of  these  represents  the  traditions  of  a  par- 
ticular locality.  The  Septuagint  Is  that  version  of 
the  text  as  held    by   the   Alexandrian   Jews.      The 


114 

Targiim — by  Jews  of  Palestine.  The  Syriac  Peshito 
— by  the  Oriental  Church.  The  Latin  Vulgate — by 
the  Western  Church.  Two  of  these,  the  Syriac  Pe- 
shito and  the  Vulgate,  Include  the  New  Testament, 
and  therefore  have  a  critical  authority  In  regard  to  It 
also.  The  LXX.  and  the  Targum  are  confined  to 
the  Old  Testament.  Besides  these,  there  are  several 
versions  immediate  In  the  N,  T.  and  mediate  In  the 
O.  T.,  and  hence  are  of  no  critical  value  except  In 
regard  to  the  N.  T.  ;  e.  g.,  the  Ita/a2ind  Philoxenian 
Syriac.  Both  of  these  made  from  the  Greek  Bible, 
and  hence  give  the  original  of  the  A^.  T.,  but  not  of 
the  O.  T.  Other  versions  are  mediate  In  both  ;  e.  e., 
the  Anglo-Saxon,  made  from  the  Latin.  This  would 
also  be  called  a  modern  version. 

I.  The  Septuagint. 

The  first  language  Into  which  the  O.  T.  was  trans- 
lated was  the  Greek,  and  the  Septuagint  was  the  first 
translation.  There  Is  now^  much  doubt  and  uncer- 
tainty as  to  Its  origin.  According  to  a  letter  pur- 
porting to  have  been  written  by  Aristeas  to  his 
brother  Philocrates  (see  Smith's  Dictionary,  p.  2919, 
Vol.  IV.),  Ptolemy  Phlladelphus  sent  Demetrius 
Phalereus  to  Jerusalem  to  obtain  a  copy  of  the  Jew- 
ish Law  for  his  library.  The  High  Priest  Eleazar 
chose  six  Interpreters  from  each  tribe,  seventy-two 
in  all,  and  sent  them  with  a  copy  of  the  Law  In  letters 
of  gold.  These  men,  by  conference  and  comparison, 
translated  the  Bible.  Josephus  gives  the  same 
account. 

Other  writers  say  that  the  Interpreters  were  shut 
up,  two  by  two.  In  cells,  and  made  out  separate 
copies,  and  that  all  the  versions  agreed  In  every  let- 
ter, when  compared.  There  are  differences  of  opin- 
ion about  this  letter  of  Aristeas.  Some  regard  It  as 
spurious  ;  other  receive  it  in  part,  and  assume  that 


fly^  tc/u^^ 


I 


t-LccC..-^.. 


$ 


a. 


k.. 


P^CLA^iL^O'T^-jJ^S 


.  .f- 


\ 


115 

the  Pentateuch  was  thus  prepared,  but  the  rest  was 
added  afterwards.  The  majority  of  critics  reject  it 
altoorether.  The  historical  and  intenuil  evidences 
are  ao^ainst  it.  The  internal  evidence  of  the  LXX, 
shows  that  it  was  made  by  Alexandrian  Jews,  and 
not  by  the  Jews  of  Palestine,  and  that  it  was  not 
done  by  one  person  or  at  one  time.  It  was  called 
forth  by  the  need  of  the  Greek-speaking  Jews,  of 
having  a  copy  for  their  own  use. 

The  Pc  ntatencJi  was  translated  first,  and  Daniel 
last,  judging  from  the  character  of  the  translation. 
Ptolemy  Philadelphus  began  to  reign  283  B.  C.  The 
whole  of  the  O.  T.  must  have  been  translated  before 
the  year  i  30  B.  C,  as  it  is  spoken  of  in  the  prologue 
to  the  Book  of  Sirach,  which  was  made  in  that  year. 
The  language  is  Hellenistic  Greek.  Different 
portions  of  the  version  are  of  different  character. 
The  Pentateuch  is  the  best,  but  Daniel  was  so  incor- 
rect, that  after  the  time  of  Origen  it  was  laid  aside, 
and  another  by  Theodotion  was  substituted  for  it, 
and  this  is  the  one  we  have.  Ecclesiastes  is  slavishly 
literal,  to  a  disregard  of  the  plainest  rules.  In  Jer- 
emiah, verses  and  chapters  are  transposed  out  of 
their  proper  order.  The  translation,  in  places, 
shows  great  liberty  in  omission  and  insertion,  the 
most  remarkable  instance  being  the  systematic  var- 
iation and  alteration  in  the  chronology  of  chapters  6 
and  II  of  Genesis.  The  Samaritan  translation  also 
differs  from  the  Hebrew  chronology.  This  Greek 
Septuagint  version  was  held  in  the  highest  venera- 
tion in  Alexandria  and  Palestine.  Many  held  it  to 
be  inspired.  It  was  read  in  the  Synagogues  of  the 
Greek  Jews  in  Palestine,  and  was  used  by  Josephus, 
Philo,  the  Apostles  and  the  Evangelists.  The  Chris- 
tian Fathers  received  it  with  the  same  veneration  as 
the  Hebrew  Bible.     As,  in  their  controversies,  the 


116 

Christians  drew  their  arguments  from  the  LXX.,  the 
Jews  gradually  fell  back  on  the  Hebrew  original,  and 
hence  began  to  give  up  the  LXX.,  and  at  length 
despised  it. 

Mutual  recriminations  arose  between  the  Jews 
and  Christians,  as  to  who  had  corrupted  the  text.  A 
number  of  new  translations  arose  from  either  party; 
e.  g.,  Aquila,  Theodotlon,  and  Symmachus.  These 
versions  did  not  attain  to  ecclesiastical  sanction  or 
general  use,  and  hence  are  only  preserved  in  a  frag- 
mentary state. 

—  Aquila,  thought  by  some  to  be  the  same  as  On- 
kelos,  a  Jewish  proselyte  of  SInope  in  Pontus,  during 
the  second  century.  His  version  was  slavishly  lit- 
eral, even  to  the  particles  ;  e.  g.,  aw  Is  often  Inserted 
(as  In  Gen.  i  :i)  where  the  preposition  really  belongs 
to  the  verb.  The  idiom  of  the  Greek  is  violated  In 
order  to  give  an  exact  rendering. 

Theodotlon,  an  Epheslan  of  the  second  century. 
His  translation  was  really  a  revision  of  the  LXX. 
His  translation  of  Daniel  is  used  in  place  of  the 
.LXX.'s  translation  of  that  book,  which  was  very  faulty. 

—  Symmachus,  an  Ebionlte,  translated  with  great 
freedom,  elegance  and  purity.  (See  Smith's  Dic- 
tionary, page  3379.) 

In  the  course  of  repeated  transcriptions,  the  text 
of  the  LXX.  has  suffered  greatly,  until  Orlgen  com- 
plained that  every  manuscript  contained  a  distinct 
text.  To  remedy  this,  and  to  furnish  aid  to  Chris- 
tians in  controversy,  Orlgen  undertook  the  labor  of 
removing  the  discrepancies  by  comparing  the  best 
MSS.,  and  pointing  out  their  agreement  with  the 
oricrlnal  Hebrew  and  with  other  Greek  versions. 

This  work  was  called  the  Hexapla.  He  spent 
twenty  years  on  it.  It  was  so  called  because  it  had 
six  parallel  columns.      The  first  column   contained 


117 

the  Hebrew  text  in  Hebrew  characters  ;  the  second, 
the  Hebrew  text  in  Greek  characters,  so  as  to  be 
pronounced  more  readily ;  the  third  contained  the 
version  of  Aqtiila  ;  the  fourth,  the  version  of  Sym- 
tnachiis  ;  the  fifth,  that  of  Theodottcn  ;  and  the  sixth, 
the  Septuagint  text.  Besides  these,  there  were  two 
or  three  additional  columns  for  different /^r//^/ z^^r- 
sio7ts.  These  supplementary  versions  are  only  known 
from  their  connection  with  this  Hexapla,  and  a  few 
citations  from  them.  Their  authors  are  for  the  most 
part  unknown.  They  are  called  Qimiia,  Sexta,  and 
Septima.  from  their  respective  places  in  the  Hexapla. 
The  author  of  the  Sexta  was  probably  a  Christian, 
for  in  Habbakuk  3  :  18,  instead  of  the  phmse  ''thine 
anointed,"  he  subsdtutes  "Jesus,  thy  Christ." 

The  Hexapla  was  chiefly  exegetical  and  polemi- 
cal The  purpose  was  not  so  much  to  bring  back 
the  Septuagint  to  its  primitive  condition  as  to  ade- 
quately represent  the  original  Hebrew.  The  plan 
of  Origen  was,  when  any  words  occurred  in  the  He- 
brew which  were  not  in  the  LXX.,  to  insert  them 
from  one  of  the  other  versions,  generally  from  The- 
odotions,  and  these  were  indicated  by  an  asterisk. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  there  were  any  words  in  the 
LXX.  which  were  not  found  in  the  Hebrew,  he  pre- 
fixed an  obelisk  to  them  to  indicate  the  fact. 

In  addition  to  the  Hexapla  of  Origen,  mention  is 
made  by  early  writers  of  a  Tetrapla  and  Octapla.  It 
is  not  agreed  whether  these  are  distinct  works  or 
another^ame  for  the  Hexapla.  The  Tetrapla  may 
have  been  so  called  (i)  as  containing  l\i^  four  prin- 
cipal versions  of  the  Hexapla,  or  (2)  as  being  a  sep- 
arate publicadon  of  those  four  versions  by  themselves 
without  the  original.      ^';    ?   •••        '' 

This  work  was  too  cumbrous  for  general  use, 
and  probably  was  never  completely  transcribed.     It 


118 

was  used  chiefly  for  comparison  or  for  making  ex- 
tracts. After  the  death  of  Origen,  it  was  preserved 
at  Caesarea,  and  was  probably  destroyed  at  the  sack 
of  the  Saracens.  Fragments  of  it  have  been  collected 
and  published  at  various  times. 

These  labors  of  Origen  indirectly  tended  to  in- 
crease the  variations,  for  transcribers  often  neglected 
his  marks  of  variation  and  so  confounded  the  ver- 
sions. 

Lucian  of  Antioch  and  Hesychius  of  Egypt  tried 
to  correct  the  LXX.,  but  all  attempts  to  find  out 
their  readings  have  been  in  vain.  All  we  know  is 
that  their  labors  did  not  q-'wq  us  a  uniform  text,  for 
Jerome  still  complained  of  a  great  diversity  of  texts 
in  his  day. 

The  MSS.  of  to-day  are  not  uniform.  A  great 
number  of  MSS.  of  the  LXX.  in  the  libraries  of 
Europe  have  been  exnmined.  The  principal  ones 
are  the  Codex  Alexandrinus  in  the  British  Meseum," 
the  Codex  Vatican  us  in  the  Vatican  Library  at  Rome, 
and  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  at  St.  Petersburg.  The 
first  portion  of  the  LXX.  printed  was  the  Psalter, 
two  editions  of  which  appeared  before  the  entire  O. 
T.  was  printed  in  Greek,  1 482-1 486.  The  Greek 
Old  and  New  Testaments  were  first  printed  in  the 
Complutensian  Polyglot,  in  1522.  During  the  delay 
in  issuinof  this  edition,  the  Aldine.ixom.  Aldus  Minu- 
tins,  appeared  in  1518.  Both  claimed  to  have  fol- 
lowed ancient  MSS. 

A  large  number  of  mediate  versions  were  made 
from  the  LXX.,  the  early  Fathers  being  familiar  with 
Greek  and  not  with  Hebrew,  most  commonly  trans- 
lating from  the  Greek.  The  oldest  Latin  version  is 
the  Itala.  The  Syro- Hexaplainc  of  the  seventh  cen- 
tury follows  the  text  of  Origen's  Hexapla.  The 
Ethiopic  version  of  the  fourth  century,  also   several 


119 

Eo-yptian  versions  in  the  Coptic  language,  in  the 
third  and  fourth  centuries,  the  Armenian'm  the  early 
part  of  the  fifth  century,  the  Georgic  in  the  sixth 
century,  the  Slavonic  In  the  ninth,  and  several  Ara- 
bic and  one  valuable  Gothic  version  by  Bishop  Ulfi- 
las,  in  the  fourth  century,  of  which  the  O,  T.  has 
perished,  and  only  a  portion  of  the  N.  T.  exists. 

The  Critical  Value  of  the  LXX.  Is  variously 
estimated  ;  some  giving  It  no  weight  whatever,  and 
others  placing  It  above  the  Masoretic  Hebrew. 
Morinus  affirms  the  superiority  of  the  LXX.,  and  so 
also  does  Capellus,  who  tried  to  show  that  in  many  j  a^ 
Instances  the  readings  of  the  LXX.  were  preferable 
to  the  Hebrew.  This  was  regarded  as  against  the 
authority  of  the  Hebrew.  Some  modern  critics  also 
preler  the  LXX.  The  majority,  however,  while  val- 
uing It  gready,  affirm  that  the  Masoretic  text  Is  the 
best  ancl  not  to  be  corrected  by  the  LXX. 
f^   II.  Chaldee  Targums. 

These  ancient  versions  or  paraphrases  are  called 
Targums  from  a  Chaldee  root  meaning  to  explain, 
or  translate.  The  word  Drago7na7i,  still  used  in  the 
East,  is  derived  from  the  same  root.  In  Ezra  4 :  7, 
the  word  is  translated  ''intn-prety  These  Targums 
are  paraphrases  and  not  exact  versions.  The  Jewish 
account  of  them  Is,  that  when  the  Chaldee  became 
the  language  of  the  people,  and  the  Hebrew  was  no 
longer  intelligible,  each  synagogue  appointed  an  in- 
terpreter, as  well  as  a  reader,  who  should  translate 
into  Chaldee  the  Scriptures  as  read.  For  the  sake 
of  greater  certainty  and  accuracy  these  extemporan- 
eous transladons  were  superseded  by  written  ver- 
sions, called  Targtcms.  They  are  distinct  works  by 
various  authors  and  ac  different  times,  each  contain- 
ing one  or  more  books  of  the  O.  T.  They  are  var- 
iously reckoned. 


120 

There  are  t^leven  principal  ones,  viz.,  three  on  the 
Pentateuch,  Onkelos,  Pseudo-yonathan,  and  the  Je7ni' 
salem  ;  two  on  the  Prophets,  Jonathan  Ben-  Uzziel, 
and  the  Jerusalem  ;  one  on  the  Hagiographa  by  Jo- 
seph the  Blind,  containing  Job,  Psahns,  and  Proverbs; 
one  on  the  five  small  books  called  Megilloth,  viz., 
[Canticles,  Ruth,  Lamentations,  Esther,  Ecclesiastes  ;  j 
three  on  Esther :  one  on  I.  dixxd  JI.  Chronicles. 

The  most  ancient  and  valuable  is  that  on  the 
Pentateuch,  by  Onkelos,  and  that  on  the  Prophets, 
by  Jonathan  Ben-Uzziel.  These  two  are  distinguished 
from  all  the  rest  by  the  purity  of  their  Chaldee, 
which  approaches  that  of  Daniel  and  Ezra.  They 
are  free  from  the  legends  of  the  later  Targums,  and 
from  arbitrary  additions,  although  Jonathan  followed 
the  original  less  closelyCthe  originakthan  Onkelos. 
These  two  are  highly  esteemed  by  the  Jews.  Onke- 
los refers  Gen.  49  :  10  and  Num.  24  :  17  to  the 
Messiah;  Jonathan  refers  Isaiah  53  to  the  Messiah; 
According  to  Jewish  tradition,  they  were  both  pupils 
of  Hillel,  a  distinguished  teacher  of  Jerusalem,  who 
died  60  B.  C.  The  accounts  are  obscure,  Onkelos 
being  by  some  confounded  with  Aquila. 

The  '''argum  of  Pseudo-Jonathan  on  the  Penta- 
teuch was  so  called  because  it  was  erroneously 
ascribed  to  the  Jonathan  above  mentioned,  whereas 
its  barbarous  Chaldee  and  historical  allusions  assign 
it  to  the  seventh  century. 

The  Jerusalem  Targum  is  so  called  either  from 
the  place  where  it  was  made,  or  from  the  dialect  in 
which  it  was  written.  It  is  not  complete.  It  fre- 
quendy  corresponds  with  the  Pseudo-Jonathan.  It 
is  doubtful  whether  it  is  original,  or  a  compilation 
from  other  Targums. 

The  remainder  of  the  Targums  are  of  compara- 
tively modern  date,  written   in   wretched   Chaldee, 


121 

and  utterly  worthless  for  purposes  of  criticism. 
There  are  no  Targums  on  Daniel,  Ezra,  and  Nehe- 
miah.  The  Talmud  says  that  Daniel  reveals  the 
exact  time  of  the  Messiah's  advent,  and  therefore 
should  not  be  made  known  to  the  people.  The  most 
probable  reason  was  that  these  books  were  written 
in  inspired  Chaldee,  and  they  were  unwilling  to 
mingle  with  it  their  uninspired  Chaldee. 

III.  The  Syriac  Version. 

This  was  likewise  written  in  the  Aramaic  tongue. 
The  Peshito,  or  Old  Syriac.  It  was  called  Peshito, 
or  ''Simple^'  (i,)  either  because  of  its  literal  charac- 
ter as  a  translation,  or  (2,)  because  of  its  plain,  una- 
dorned, and  simple  style,  or  (3,)  because  it  clings  to 
the  literal  interpretation,  as  opposed  to  the  allegor- 
ical. It  is  evidendy  the  work  of  a  Christian  trans- 
lator, perhaps  a  converted  Jew,  inasmuch  as  this  was 
made  directly  from  the  Hebrew,  and  with  great 
accuracy.  Most  of  the  ancient  versions  are  made 
from  the  LXX.  The  age  of  this  old  Syriac  version 
is  disputed,  and  its  origin  obscure.  It  is  the  basis  of 
the  Christian  literature  of  the  old  Syrian  church.  It 
was  known  in  the  fourth  century,  for  Ephraim  Syrus, 
who  died  A.  D.  i^Z,  makes  it  the  basis  of  his  com- 
mentary,' and  says  that  it  was  in  common  use  in  the 
Syrian  church.  It  has  been  ascribed  to  the  third, 
^second,  and  even  to  the  first  century,  prepared  dur- 
ing the  lifetime  of  the  Apostles  themselves.  It  is 
urged  in  favor  of  its  age  that  it  was  generally  received 
in  the  time  of  Ephraim  Syrus,  and  that  many  words 
and  phrases  were  at  that  time  obscure,  and  besides, 
the  early  Syrian  church  would  require  such  a  version. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  supposable  that  it  could 
have  existed  more  than  a  century^before  any  other 
Christian  writings  appeared  in  that  language.  This 
originally  contained  only  the  Canonical  books.   The 


122 

Apocryphal  books  were  afterwards  added.  It  con- 
tinued to  be  the  received  translation  among  them 
until  the  controversy  between  the  Monophysites  and 
the  Nestorians  gave  rise  to  another. 
t  /C  Paul,  Bishop  of  Tela,  made  the  Syro-Hexaplaric 
version  from  the  Septuagint  of  Origen's  Hexapla, 
early  in  the  seventh  century ;  English  translation  of 
it  by  Dr.   Murdoch  of  New  Haven. 

IV.  Latin  Versions. 
.JL^^y,  /' '.  <■  ^«      From    a  statement   made   by   Augustine,    there 
^'  must  have  been  several  Latin  versions.      He  says  that 

those  who  translated  into  Greek  from  the  Hebrew 
could  be  numbered,  but  the  Latin  translators  could  in 
no  manner  be  counted.  He  speaks  of  one  of  them 
under  the  name  of  the  Itala.  To  this  he  gives  prefer- 
ence on  account  of  its  superior  accuracy  and  perspic- 
uity. All  these  Latin  versions  were  made,  not  from 
the  Hebrew,  but  from  the  Greek, — from  the  LXX.  in 
the  Old  Testament,  and  from  the  original  Greek  inthe 
New.  This  variety  of  translations  produced  such 
confusion  and  so  many  discrepancies,  that  it  was 
complained  that  there  were  almost  as  many  different 
texts  as  there  were  MSS. 

Repeated  solicitations  were  accordingly  made  of 
Jerome,  a  monk  of  Palestine,  the  most  learned  man 
of  his  time,  equally  skilled  in  Hebrew,  Greek,  and 
Latin,  that  he  should  undertake  the  revision  and 
correction  of  the  Latin  versions.  In  382  or  383 
A.  D.,  at  the  urgent  request  of  Da^masus,  Bishop  of 
Rome,  he  began  a  hasty  revision  of  the  Gospels, 
then  proceeded  to  the  rest  of  the  N.  T.,  and  then 
passed  to  the  Psalms,  and  reviewed  them  afterward 
more  carefully.  The  first  of  these  two  revisions  of 
the  Psalms  by  Jerome  was  adopted  at  Rome  and 
hence  was  called  the  Romaji  Psalter.  The  second 
was  adopted  in  Gaul  and  hence  was  called  the  Gallic 


-ft -I 


123 

Psalter.  Jerome,  after  going  over  many  books  of 
the  O.  T.,  then  resolved  upon  a  new  and  Independ- 
ent version  from  the  original  Hebrew.  He  obtained 
at  considerable  expense  the  assistance  of  native 
jews,  and  made  use  also -of  pre-existing  Greek  ver- 
sions. Such  was  the  veneration  for  the  LXX.  that 
every  departure  from  It  was  regarded  as  a  deviation 
from  the  word  of  God  and  offensive  to  Him.  Even 
Augustine  begged  him  to  desist.  Jerome  persever- 
ed, nevertheless,  but  kept  as  closely  to  the  LXX.  as 
possible,  sometimes  against  his  better  judgment. 
He  began  In  385,  but  the  work  was  not  completed 
and  published  until  405.  Some  parts  were  hastily 
prepared.  He  speaks  of  translating  a  thousand 
verses  in  one  day  and  says  that  he  translated  Pro- 
verbs, Eccleslastes,  and  Canticles,  In  three  days. 

This  translation  is  one  of  the  best  preserved  to 
us  from  antiquity.  It  was  long  In  coming  into  gene- 
ral use.  The  old  Itala  continued  to  be  used  In  con- 
nection with  it  until  about  the  beginning  of  the  sev- 
enth century,  when  all  the  Western  Church  accept- 
ed It,  but  retained  the  old  version  of  the  Psalter. 

The  modern  Vulgate  consists  of  the  Apocrypha 
from  the  Itala,  the  Psalter  of  the  Itala  corrected  by 
Jerome,  and  the  rest  is  Jerome's  version.  The  Itala 
and  Vulgate  have  been  corrected  by  each  other,  and 
hence  both  have  become  corrupted.  Repeated 
attempts  have  been  made  by  later  scholars  to  correct 
the  text  of  the  Latin  Bible.  The  learned  Alculn  in 
the  ninth  century,  under  the  direction  of  Charle- 
magne, undertook  the  restoration  of  the  true  text- 
Also  Lanfranc,  archbishop  of  Canterbury  in  elev- 
enth century  and  Cardinal  Mlthaells  of  the  twelfth 
century.  There  were  several  works  in  the  twelfth 
and  thirteenth  centuries  called  the  "  Correctoria 
Blblica   or   Epanorthica,"  containing  also   different 


124  j.^,.:, 

readings,  especially  the  Sorbonne  Edition  and  that 
of  Hugo  St.  Clair. 

Great  importance  was  given  to  this  Latin  version 
by  a  decision  of  the  Council  of  Trent.  On  the  8th 
of  April  1 546,  it  was  decreed  that  the  Vulgate  should 
be  held  as  authentic  in  public  reading,  preaching 
and  exposition,  and  that  no  one  should  dare  or  pre- 
sume to  reject  it  on  any  pretense  whatever.  This 
decree  accordingly  contained  an  order  for  the  print- 
ine  of  an  accurate  edition.  A  standard  edition  was 
published  in  1 590  under  the  direction  of  Pope  Six- 
tus  v.,  called  the  Sixtine  edition.  This  was  declared 
to  be  the  one  pronounced  authentic  by  the  Council 
of  Trent,  and  the  printing  of  any  other  copy  differ- 
ent from  this  was  forbidden  under  penalty  of  excom- 
munication. Errors  were  immediately  discovered 
in  it,  however,  and  only  two  years  after,  Clement 
VIII.  published  a  new  edition  differing  from  the  other 
in  some  thousands  of  places,  and  this  last  is  now  the 
standard  edition  of  the  Vulgate.  This  action  of  the 
Popes  has  always  been  a  sore  point  with  those  who 
hold  the  doctrine  of  the  Papal  Infallibility. 

>  Hebrew  Manuscripts. 

The  MSS.  of  the  original  in  the  N.  T.  are  more 
numerous  and  older  than  of  the  O.  T.,  but  this  is 
compensated  for  by  the  fact  that  in  the  MSS.  of  O. 
T.  there  is  greater  care  and  accuracy  in  transcrip- 
tion.    The  variations  are  few  and  unimportant. 

The  existing  Hebrew  MSS.  consist  of  tzvo 
classes: — i.  Those  for  the  use  of  the  Synagogue  ; 
2.  Those  used  by  private  persons.  Of  the  latter 
there  are  two  classes : — (a)  Those  written  in  the 
square  letter,  and  (b)  those  written  in  the  abbrevia- 
ted Rabbinical  letter  or  running  hand. 


126 

I.  The  Synagogue  AISS.  These  are  the  most 
valuable,  and  contain  those  portions  of  the  O.  T. 
which  were  selected  for  reading  in  the  Synagogues; 
i.  e.,  the  Law  and  the  Prophets. 

(a)  The  Law  was  on  07ie  MS.  The  lessons 
from  the  Law  were  read  in  course,  and  were  called 
Parashoth. 

(b)  The  Prophets  were  not  read  in  course,  but 
from  lessons,  and  these  were  written  on  separate 
MSS.,  called //(^^/////^;W//, and  were  numbered  to  cor- 
respond to  the  passages  of  the  Pentateuch  to  be  read 
on  the  same  Sabbath.  The  tradition  is  that  the  les- 
sons were  originally  only  to  be  read  from  the  Law, 
but  when  Antiochus  Epiphanes  forbade  the  reading 
of  the  Law  in  the  Synagogue,  lessons  were  selected 
from  the  Prophets  to  evade  the  requirement  of  the 
king.  There  were  separate  rolls  lor  the  ^v^  smaller 
books,  i.  e.,  the  Megilloth,  viz.,  Esther,  Ecclesiastes, 
Canticles,  Ruth,  and  Lamentations.  Esther  was  read 
at  the  feast  of  Purini.  These  MSS.  or  rolls  were 
prepared  with  the  greatest  care,  according  to  rules 
given  in  the  Talmud,  which  were  superstitiously  mi- 
nute. They  must  be  written  on  parchment  prepared 
from  the  skin  of  a  clean  animal.  The  text  was  to  be 
the  square  character,  written  in  columns,  without 
vowels  or  points,  and  to  be  written  in  black  ink. 
All  large  and  small  letters  were  to  be  carefully 
noted.  The  copyist  must  look  at  each  word  in  the 
original  before  transcribing  it.  The  copy  must  be 
corrected  within  thirty  days,  and  if  four  errors  were 
discovered  on  one  skin,  that  MS.  must  be  rejected. 

These  MSS.  are  very  valuable,  and  are  highly 
prized.  Very  few  of  them  are  in  the  hands  of  Chris- 
tians, because  the  Jews  generally  burned  them  when 
they  became  old,  lest  they  should  be  polluted  by  the 
touch  of  a  Christian. 


126 

II.  Private  MSS.  These  are  rarely  complete. 
They  generally  contain  only  parts  of  the  O.  T. 
Sometimes  are  written  in  rolls,  but  generally  bound 
in  books  of  various  sizes. 

(a)  Tiiose  which  were  written  in  the  square  char- 
acter are  most  valuable,  and  contain  the  points  and 
vowels.  The  letters  were  written  first,  the  points 
and  vowels  beine  added  afterwards.  One  wrote 
the  consonants,  another  the  vowels  and  the  K'ri. 
Another  corrected  it.  Another  added  the  Masora 
and  Scholia.  They  are  nearly  all  written  in  black 
ink,  with  ornamented  words  or  letters  in  the  opening 
paragraphs.  The  prose  was  written  in  columns,  and 
the  poetry  in  clauses.  Sometimes  the  Hebrew  text 
was  accompanied  by  translations  in  Chaldee  or  Ara- 
bic. The  upper  and  lower  margins  contain  the  Great 
Masora  or  traditions  as  to  the  text ;  the  o2cter  mar- 
gin the  scholia  or  some  Rabbinical  comm^nidiVy  ;  the 
inner  margin  the  K'ri  and  Litde  Masora.  Some- 
times the  material  was  parchment,  but  oftener  linen 

or  cotton  paper.    ^^  ^^"^  "^'^    r^U.^  A--^  -t.u<„.^^  ^  X-* 

(b)  'rhe  Private  MSS.  in  the  Rabbinical  charac- 
ter are  mostly  on  paper,  without  points,  accents,  or 
Masora,  and  with  many  abbreviations. 

Those  MSS.  designed  for  the  use  of  the  Syna- 
gogues are  the  most  important.  The  Private  MSS. 
in  the  square  characters  are  next  in  value,  and  the 
Private  MSS.  in  the  Rabbinical  character  are  least 
important. 

The  determination  of  the  age  of  Hebrew  MSS. 
is  very  difficult,  especially  if  there  be  no  date  or  in- 
scription. A  criterion  available  in  Greek  or  Latin 
MSS.,  drawn  from  the  shape  of  the  letters,  is  not 
available  here,  because  the  square  letter  is  the  same 
in  all  existing  MSS.  Some  MSS.  have  subscriptions 
giving  the  date,  but  some  of  these  are  found  to  be 


V  r 


127 

fraudulent  and  are  added  to  increase  the  value. 
There  is  great  difficulty  in  interpreting  these  sub- 
scriptions even  when  the  date  is  given,  because  they 
bear  record  from  different  eras,  and  it  is  uncertain 
what  these  eras  were. 

The  Hebrew  MSS.  are  obtained  from  the 
remotest  countries,  from  the  Jews  in  India  and 
China,  and  have  the  same  text  as  in  our  Bibles. 
A  large  number  of  MSS.  have  been  described 
and  examined  by  Pinner  and  others.  Pinner  gives 
an  account  of  several  Hebrew  MSS.  found  at 
Odessa,  which  must  be  by  several  centuries  the  old- 
est known  to  exist,  if  his  word  can  be  taken.  What 
he  regards  as  the  oldest,  is  the  Pentateuch  Roll  on 
leather,  which  was  brought  to  Odessa  from  Dhagis- 
tan.  The  subscription  says  that  it  was  corrected  in 
580,  hence  it  is  probably  much  older  than  that. 
Another  was  written  in  843,  another  in  881. 

The  oldest  MSS.  in  DeRosse's  collection  were 
some  rescued  from  the  Genesa  at  Lucca,  where  the 
Jews  were  accustomed  to  bury  their  MSS.  These 
consisted  of  fragments  of  the  Pentateuch  which  he  ^ 

supposed  to  belong  to  MSS.  of  the  eighth  century.  ^"^-"^^-^ 

The  oldest  in    Kennecott's   collection   bears   the  ^^  ^^ 
date  1018  A.  D.  '^t^^ 

i^t^-^.K.  No  uniform  Hebrew  text  is  preserved  in  the 
Samaritan  letters  and  among  the  Samaritans,  though 
they  have  the  Hebrew  Pentateuch.  There  is  what  is 
called  a  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  and  there  is  a  Samari- 
tan Version  of  the  Pentatench.  The  first  is  the  He- 
brew Pentateuch  written  in  Samaritan  letters,  by 
Joseph  Skaliger  of  the  sixteenth  century.  The  first 
copy  ever  seen  in  Europe  was  obtained  by  Peter 
Delaval  on  his  return  from  Palestine  in  1662,  when 
he  published  an  account  of  the  countries  visited. 


128 

The  Samaritans  now  consist  of  a  few  families  in 
Nablous.  They  seem  to  have  hved  in  small  com- 
munities at  that  time.  Delaval  was  in  Damascus  in 
1616,  and  succeeded  in  purchasing  two  manuscripts, 
one  containing  the  Hebrew  text,  or  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch,  on  parchment,  which  he  deposited  in  a 
Paris  Library  ;  the  other,  the  Samaritan  Version  of 
the  Pentateuch,  he  retained  himself. 

Since  this  time,  various  other  copies  of  the 
Samaritan  Pentateuch  have  been  obtained  by  Euro- 
pean scholars.  The  opinions  of  scholars  vary  as  to 
its  value.  Its  first  publisher,  Morinus,  vindicated  the 
claim  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  to  be  superior 
to  the  Masoretic  text ;  others  depreciate  it.  The 
strife  continued  a  long  time,  but  the  matter 
is  now  very  much  at  rest  as  to  the  main  points.  It 
was  claimed  by  Morinus  to  have  been  derived  from 
the  Pentateuchs  of  the  ten  tribes  at  the  time  of  the 
schism  of  Jeroboam  ;  the  common  opinion  now,  how- 
ever, is  that  it  appeared  after  the  Babylonish  exile. 
Manassas,  brother  of  the  high-priest  at  Jerusalem, 
being  threatened  with  exclusion  from  the  priesthood 
for  marrying  a  Samaritan  woman,  fled  to  the  temple 
on  Mt.  Gerizim,  carrying  the  Pentateuch  with  him, 
and  the  modern  Samaritan  copies  are  derived  from 
this. 

In  favor  of  that  view  that  gives  the  greatest  anti- 

.     quity  to  it,  it  was  argued  that  the   hatred   between 

<^<^^**;^  *^^    the  Samaritans  and  jews  was  such  that  they  would 

»  U:^  fyZixjL^  not  adopt  their  books.     It  was  further  urged  that  the 

Samaritans  received  of  all  the  books  of  the  O.  T. 

only  the  Pentateuch.     It  was  urged  that,  if  these  were 

in  existence  when    they  borrowed  the  Pentateuch, 

they  would  have  taken  them  likewise.     In  reply  to 

this,  however,  we  may  say  that  the  Samaritans  are 

not  the  leo^itimate  descendants  of  the  ten  tribes,  but 


129 

are  rather  the  descendants  of  the  heathen  colonists 
introduced  by  the  king  of  Assyria,  after  the  ten 
tribes  were  carried  into  captivity.  The  enmity  be- 
tween the  two  was  not  a  bar  to  their  adopting  the 
books.  The  Samaritans  claimed  at  the  end  of  the 
captivity,  to  be  the  children  of  Israel,  and  offered  to 
unite  with  them  in  rebuilding  the  temple.  The  Jews 
refused  this  claim,  which  refusal  was  the  basis  of  the 
hostility  between  them.  They  renewed  their  claim 
as  often  as  it  was  to  their  interest  to  do  so.  This 
claim  was  the  ground  of  their  hatred.  Hence  the 
Samaritans  would  catch  with  eagerness  anything 
tending  to  strengthen  their  claim.  Almost  every 
thing  they  had  was  borrowed  from  the  Jews.  So 
they  coveted  the  Pentateuch.  Their  reverence  for 
the  Pentateuch,  while  rejecting  the  rest  of  the  O.  T., 
cannot  be  accounted  for  by  saying  this  was  not 
written,  for  other  portions  were  in  existence  at  that 
time.  The  Samaritans  have  a  book  of  Joshua,  but 
not  the  correct  one.  The  true  reason  arose  out  of 
the  nature  of  their  religious  system.  It  was  the 
same  as  that  which  led  the  heretics  of  the  early 
Chrisdan  Church  to  reject  the  episdes  of  Paul,  &c. 
The  contents  did  not  suit  their  creed.  The  grand 
Article  of  Faith  with  the  Samaritans,  was,  that  on 


O-Uji^  ih<xujt 


Mt.  Gerizim  everybody  should  worship,  and  not  at  ^  .  ^ 

Jerusalem.     The    Pentateuch    was   altered  for    this  ^^j^*^  ^^ 
purpose  in  more  than  one    place.     And   all   those 


books  which  speak  of  a  local  seat  of  God's   house  ^c^-c^tccuA.  ^ 
after  the  people  were  settled  in  Canaan,  were  reject-  ^^-^  /^ 
ed  by  them  from  the  canon  ;  but  Moses  they  could  ^^^ 

not  reject.  The  opinion  that  it  was  derived  at  the 
schism  of  Jeroboam  has  been  given  up  for  the  rea- 
sons given.  The  period  of  the  defection  of  Manassas, 
is  the  best  that  can  be  obtained. 


130 

While  the  Samaritan  and  the  Jewish  Pentateuch 
agree  in  the  main,  yet  they  differ  in  several  thou- 
sand readings.  A  large  portion  consists  merely  of 
the  insertion  of  vowel  letters,  or  the  insertion  or 
omission  of  the  copulative  conjunction  or  the  article, 
or  other  triflino-  variations.  Quite  a  number,  how- 
ever,  are  of  greater  consequence.  In  upwards  of  a 
•  thousand  readings  it  agrees  with  the  Septuagint  as 
against  the  Masoretic  text.  The  manuscripts  are 
written  with  little  care  and  exhibit  many  discrepan- 
cies among  themselves.  These  are  of  no  critical 
value ;  yet  they  agree  in  many  particulars.  The 
investio^ations  of  Gesenius  have  shown  that  the  ereat 
body  were  intentional  alterations  of  the  text,  made 
for  the  purpose  of  simplifying,  etc.,  the  reasons  for 
which  can  still  be  assicrned.  Gesenius  crives  several 
classes. 

1.  Grammatical  emendations  :  unusual  forms 
changed  for  the  more  ordinary;  archaisms  avoided  ; 
want  of  agreement  between  verb  and  subject,  noun 
and  adj.,  etc.,  in  very  many  cases  agreeing  with  the 
K'ri. 

2.  System  of  explanatory  glosses:  difficult  words 
or  unusual  forms  of  speech  explained  ;  some  simpler 
phrase  or  word  used  without  varying  the  sense. 

3.  Conjectural  emendatjon  of  a  letter  or  two,  to 
improve  the  sense  and  to  remove  imaginary  difficul- 
ties. ^'^   ^t.^-  ^a  " 

4.  AltPTations  for  the  sake  of  conforming  to 
parallel  passages  ;  e.  g.,  the  father-in-law  of  Moses, 
in  Ex.  4  :  1 8,  is  said  to  be  Jethe^r,  which  the  Samari- 
tans make  JjetLxD.  The  name  of  Moses'  successor, 
which  the  Bible  occasionally  gives  in  a  different  way, 
the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  gives  as  Joshua.  In  the 
genealogies,  Gen.  11,"  and  he  died"  is  added  to  the 
name  of  every  patriarch,  as  in  the  fifth  chap.     When- 


<X<-.*<;^ 


'^"^ 


131 

ever  aiiy  names  of  the  Canaanitish  tribes  occur,  the 
Samaritan  Pentateuch  gives  all  of  them. 

5-  The    fifth    class    of   correction^^involve    still,, 
^reater^nterpolation,  where   whole   sentences,  and 
often  verses,  are  interpolated. 

6.  Qprrections  to  ^remove  historical  and  other^ 
difficulties.  Ex.  12:  40,  "j^  years."  The  Samaritan 
copy  makes  this  cover  the  wandering  of  the  Patri- 
archs in  Canaan  as  well  as  their  setdement  in  Egypt, 
by  inserdng  "  who  dwelt  in  the  land  of  Canaan." 
The  most  remarkable  variations  occur  in  Gen.  5  and 
II.  The  Samaritan  and  the  Septuagint  text  differ 
here  from  the  Hebrew  and  from  each  other.  It  is 
easy  to  discover  that  both  were  altered  from  the 
Hebrew,  but  with  different  ends  in  view. 

7.  "  SajTia£i|aaisms^''  as  Gesenius  calls  them.     In 

these  they  st^mto  their  native  idioms.     uur^^C^-  t4^..^^m'CC^ 

8.  Those  which  have  been  altered  to  cpnform-la.  '^^-^ 
Samaritan    ideas.     The    removal    of    anthropomor- 
phisms,— the  imputing  to  God  that  which  belongs  to 

man,  e.  g.,  such  as  would  impute  bodily  passions  or 
human  parts  to  God.     Deut.  27:4. 

The  Samaritans  change  Ebal  to  Gerizim. 

The  MSS.  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  were 
pardy  on  parchment,  or  on  cotton  and  li^nen  paper  ; 
no  vowels  or  poindng  ;  somedmes  there  is  a  dia- 
cridcal  line  to  separate  words  similarly  written  ; 
words  are  separated  by  a  point  or  by  two  points. 

Three  native  versions  have  been  made  from  the 
Samaritan  Pentateuch,  one  into  Greek,  one  into  the 
Samaritan  language,  and  the  third  into  the  Arabic. 
The  last  two  are  sdll  extant.  The  Greek  has  per^ 
ished.     These  versions  are  of  no  account. 


AM^^-^-^t^       A< 


132 

Criticism  and  History  of  the  Text  of  the  Old 
Testament. 

By  text  is  meant  the  very  words  of  the  writer. 
The  office  of  criticism  is  to  remove  errors  in  the 
existing  MSS.  by  means  of  all  the  evidence  existing. 
The  name  criticism  is  repugnant  to  some  minds  from 
the  erroneous  notion  entertained  of  it.  The  leeiti- 
mate  aim  of  criticism  is  the  restoration  of  the  text  as 
it  came  from  the  hands  of  the  sacred  penman.  It 
does  not  produce  uncertainty.  It  establishes  the 
correctness  of  the  received  text. 

The  sources  of  textual  criticism  are  four-fold,  i . 
Manuscripts.  2.  Versions.  3.  Quotations.  4. 
Conjectures. 

I.  Manuscripts  are  liable  to  error  in  transcription. 
If  it  were  not  for  this  they  would  be  certain  evidence. 
These  errors  are  by  accident  or  design. 

(i.)  Errors  by  accident.  Liability  to  error  was 
greater  formerly  than  now.  Yet  even  now  errata 
are  common  in  printed  books.  They  increase  in 
arithmetical  progression  in  the  old  manuscripts. 
There  are,  (a)  errors  of  the  eye.  (b)  Errors  of  the 
ear,  one  reading  while  another  writes,  (c)  Errors 
of  memory,  causing  transposition,  omission,  inter- 
change, taking  parallel  passages,  etc.  (d)  Errors  of 
judgment.  The  erroneous  divisions  of  words  ;  mis- 
understanding  abbreviations,  mistaking  syllables  for 
words,  and  marginal  remarks  for  part  of  the  text. 
(2.)  Ei^rors  by  design.  The  early  Christians  charged 
the  Jews  and  heretics  with  intentional  errors  ;  with 
regard  to  the  former  they  were  groundless.  Manu- 
scripts were  subjected  to  intentional  alterations,  made 
to  introduce  corrections,  etc.  This  was  done  design- 
edly, though  with  good  motives  ;  yet  it  was  no  less 
a  mistake. 


133 

The  first  consideration  In  determining  the  authen- 
ticity of  a  manuscript  Is  Its  date  ;  another,  the  care 
with  which  it  was  written,  whether  there  are  marks 
of  carelessness  ;  again,  the  general  cgreement  of  the 
text  with  other  valuable  manuscripts. 

2.  The  second  class  of  critical  authorities  are  the 
ancient  versions.  By  their  critical  value  is  meant 
the  aid  they  give  in  restoring  or  settling  the  true 
text  of  Scripture  jrEhelr  hermeneutlcal  value  They 
place  before  us  the  system  of  Interpretation  adopted 
by  the  translators.  To  these  may  be  added  the  ex- 
egetical  value  of  a  version,  the  aid  which  they  render 
us!  TTow  different  versions  are  of  unequal  merit  In 
these  various  respects. 

These  two  uses  are  quite  independent  of  each 
other.  No  version  can  have  critical  value  unless  it 
is  both  m^.r.}p.7if  and  immediate :  the  older  the  better; 
the  nearer  the  fountain-head,  the  purer  the  stream. 
Those  before  the  Masorites  are  called  ancient.  Since 
that  time  the  text  Is  the  same  as  we  have  before  us. 

Some  have  even  proposed  to  substitute  a  version 
for  the  original.  So  the  Council  of  Trent  did  In 
regard  to  the  Vulgate,  which  they  declared  authentic. 
None  shall  reject  it.  Some  doctors  of  the  Romish 
Church  understand  this  to  leoritlmatlze  its  use ;  others 
understand  it  to  set  aside  other  copies  in  favor  of 
this.  We  cannot  make  the  stream  higher  than  its 
source.  No  one  is  willing  to  rely  upon  translations, 
if  he  can  read  the  original. 

None  can  vie  with  the  original  Scriptures  as 
being  universally  received  and  authoritative.  No 
one  has  ever  claimed  the  Vulgate  to  be  inspired, 
(i)  The  only  grounds  would  be  that  the  original  has 
become  hopelessly  corrupt,  or  (2)  wholly  unintelli- 
gible. For  the  first,  it  must  be  shown  that  this  cor- 
ruption did  not  enter  before  the  version  was  made. 


134 

As  to  the  second,  it  must  be  shown  that  the  version 
has  been  kept  pure  itself.  It  has  been  shown  that 
the  original  Scriptures  have  been  preserved  purer 
than  any  other.  Aft^^that  it  is  unintelligible  without 
points,  which  are  of  human  authority. 

This  argument  is  at  fault  both  in  the  premises 
and  in  the  conclusion.  The  Hebrew  Bible  can  be  read 
without  the  points.  Ancient  and  valuable  transla- 
tions may  be  used  as  helps,  but  not  substituted  in 
its  place.  This  argument  has  been  abandoned  by 
the  greater  number. 

Versions  are  not  of  as  great  importance  as  man- 
uscripts. If  a  copy  is  taken  from  a  manuscript  and 
one  from  a  version,  the  version  would  be  one  step 
from  the  source.  Manuscripts,  therefore,  are  the 
primary  authorities  in  criticisms,  versions  of  second- 
ary authority.  No  new  reading  on  the  sole  authority 
of  versions  should  be  admitted,  though  they  may 
lend  their  aid.  It  is  necessary  to  institute  careful 
examinations  of  the  versions,  separately.  The  first 
inquiry  must  be  as  to  the  state  of  the  version  itself. 
The  work  of  the  version  depends  upon  the  accuracy 
of  the  copy  from  which  it  is  made. 

Versions  have  another  source  of  corruption 
peculiar  to  themselves,  viz.,  the  interpretation  and 
correction  of  one  version  from  another.  When  the 
primary  text  of  the  immediate  versions  has  been 
obtained,  the  question  arises,  does  it  give  a  free  or 
literal  translation  ?  If  free,  it  is  of  little  worth  to  the 
critic.  Further,  if  it  gives  a  paraphrase,  it  increases 
the  hermeneutical  value,  but  ruins  it  for  critical  pur- 
poses. For  the  aid  of  the  critic,  it  is  better  if  it  ren- 
ders every  particle,  however  unintelligible  it  might 
be  made. 

Closely  allied  with  the  preceding  is  the  nature 
of  the  language  into  which  the   version  was  made. 


135 

The  closer  the  affinity  between  the  languages,  the 
clearer  the  meaning,  and  the  less  the  change.  A 
version  into  Syriac  would  have  an  advantage  over 
one  into  the  Greek  or  the  Latin. 

Another  point  is  the  general  accuracy  of  the  ver- 
sions, including  the  fidelity  and  ability  of  the  trans- 
lators. The  use  of  a  version  in  the  criticism  of  the 
original  requires  great  caution. 

3,  Third  source  of  criticism  is  quotations  found 
in  the  early  writers.  The  first  printed  editions 
known  to  have  been  taken  from  ancient  manuscripts 
since  lost  are  entitled  to  credit,  corresponding  to 
their  respective  sources.  Some  internal  grounds 
arising  from  these  various  readings  themselves.  The 
most  general  rule  is,  that  reading  which  will  give  the 
most  satisfactory  account  of  all  the  others  is  probably 
the  true  one.  For  this  reason  the  most  difficult  read- 
ing is  often  to  be  regarded  as  the  original  one.  Yet 
this  rule  must  be  used  with  caution.  Again,  that 
readi^ig  which  gives  the  best  sense,  and  agrees  best  with 
the  text ;  the  style  of  the  author  also  may  furnish  a 
presumption  in  favor  of  one  reading.  An  improper 
use  has  often  been  made  of  parallel  passages. 
Copies  sometimes  give  parallel  passages  instead  of 
the  true  one.  It  is  particularly  so  with  the  Psalms. 
Discrepancies  are  often  proof  of  the   conscientious 

care  with  which  they  are  preserved.  /?*f^-  - 

4.  Where  everything  else  fails,  recourse  must  be 
had  to  critical  conjecture.  Our  object  should  be  to 
determine  what  the  text  actually  was,  not  to  deter- 
mine what  it  miorht  have  been.  Our  authorities  are  so 
ample  that  critical  conjecture  is  only  to  be  resorted 
to  in  extreme  cases,  or  not  at  all.     This    is   much 

more  extensively  used  in  the  profane  writings.  /HaucL^^.^^. 

The  general  result  of  all  this  is  to  establish  the 
correctness  of  the    inspired    text.     None   of  them 


136 

materially  affect  the  inspired  text.  While  the 
mechanical  correctness  of  the  text  is  maintained,  its 
correctness  in  the  main  is  established.^ There  could 
have  been  no  mutilations  before  the  time  of  the 
Saviour,  for  He  or  the  Apostles  would  have  exposed 
them.  They  charge  the  Jews  with  other  sins,  but 
not  with  this.  To  this  agrees  their  own  scrupulous 
adherence  to  the  word  of  God,  and  their  supersti- 
tious veneration  for  it.  It  has  not  been  changed 
since  the  time  of  the  Saviour,  from  the  impossibility 
of  Jews  combining  to  corrupt  them,  scattered  as  they 
are  over  the  world.  Then  they  had  no  access  to 
those  in  the  hands  of  the  Christians. 

The  internal  evidence  of  their  Scriptures  is  the 
same  as  the  Christians  have.  The  charores  of  this  na- 
ture  made  by  the  early  Christians  seem  to  have  arisen 
from  the  veneration  in  which  the  Septuagint  was 
then  held.  While  the  Jews  were  guiltless  of  wilful 
alteration,  they  took  great  pains  to  prevent  errors, 
which  are  almost  unavoidable  in  repeated  transcrip- 
tions. Even  the  size  of  the  letters,  position  of  the 
letters,  finals  and  medials,  etc.,  were  transmitted  from 
age  to  age,  and  so  printed  in  our  Hebrew  Bible. 
Guarding  it  thus,  they  counted  the  verses,  words, 
and  even  the  letters  of  Scripture,  marking  the  mid- 
dle word,  etc.,  showing  the  disposition  to  preserve 
them  entire. 

The  mass  of  criticism  called  the  Masora  accumu- 
lated gradually  ;  the  beginning  was  very  early.  It 
is  now  very  unweildy.  There  are  the  Great  Masora 
and  the  Little  Masora  ;  the  latter  is  an  abridgement 
of  the  former.  To  the  Masora  belong  the  K'ri  and 
the  K'thibh,  (read  and  zvritten,)  referring  exclusively 
to  the  letters,  never  to  the  vowels.  They  are  about 
one  thousand  in  number.  The  origin  of  these 
various  readings  is  involved  in    great  uncertainty. 


137 

Perhaps  from  the  collation  of  MSS.  It  seems  plain 
that  all  did  not  arise  from  this  source.  Many  arose 
perhaps  from  a  desire  for  grammatical  uniformity. 
K'thibh  refers  to  the  original  text,  the  K'ri  is  a  gloss 
upon  it.  The  K'thibh  and  K'ri  do  not  stand  side  by 
side  as  resting  upon  independent  authority.  The 
K'thibh  was  placed  in  the  text,  and  required  it  to  be 
read  according  to  the  K'ri  in  the  margin.  •  This 
seems  to  show  that  the  Masora  found  already  in 
existence  a  text  which  was  to  be  considered  true  and 
unaltered.     They  made  no  alterations  in  the  context. 

The  first  portion  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  ever  printed 
was  the  Psalms,  in  1477,  accompanied  by  a  commen-  uJ-  ^t 
tary.  The  Hebrew  Bible  was  printed  entire  at  St. 
Senna  in  the  duchy  of  Milan,  in  1488  ;  only  nine 
copies  of  this  are  known  to  be  in  existence.  The 
second  complete  edition,  the  one  which  Luther  used, 
was  made  six  years  later.  Luther  used  it  in  making 
his  German  Bible.  By  a  Rabbinical  Bible  is  meant 
a  Hebrew  Bible  containing  the  Chaldee  Targums  as 
well  as  the  Masora  and  the  commentaries  of  the 
Rabbins.  Three  editions  have  been  printed  ;  Daniel 
Vombar  in  1518,  Buxstorf  in  1618  (a  copy  of  which 
is  in  the  Seminary  Library,)  Amsterdam  in  1724. 

The  text  of  the  Pentateuch  was  divided  for  read-, 
ing  in  the  Synagogue  into  54  sections  ;  these  were 
subdivided  into  669  lesser  divisions,  cd^X&d  Pa7^askoth. 
These  smaller  sections  are  some  of  them  designated 
by  the  £3  or  d.  The  large  sections  are  marked  with 
three  large  s'sor^'s;  corresponding  are  the  les- 
sons from  the  Prophets,  the  Hafturas.  When  the 
reading  of  the  Law  was  prohibited,  the  reading  of 
the  Prophets  took  its  place.  Chapters  are  of  Chris- 
tian  origin.  Cardinal  Hugo  first  introduced  them 
into  the  Vulgate  in  the  13th  Century.     The  division 

/)ltS^t(X-  -^-^t.a.tu/    n^oujU^u^^  . 


138 

of  the  Bible  into  verses  is  as  old  as   the   system    of 
accents.    »\/i> 

By  a  critical  edition  we  mean  one  having  a  col- 
lection of  various  readingrs.  The  most  noted  are  those 
of  How,  begun  in  Paris  in  1753  ;  and  of  Kennicott 
in  Oxford  in  1776.  This  last  is  made  from  694 
MSS.  De  Rosse,  a  few  years  later,  exhibited  vari- 
ous readings  from  700  MSS.  The  Polyglot  exhibits 
several  ancient  versions  possessing  critical  authority. 
There  are  four  principal  Polyglots;  Complutensian- 
Polyglot  of  Spain,  Antwerp,  Paris,  and  London.  A 
copy  of  each  is  in  the  Seminary  Library.  The 
Antwerp  edition,  or  "  Biblia  Regia,"  in  8  Vols.,  i^'Bq, 
^  was    published    under    the   patronage    of   Philip  of 

yxLct^  Szrp       Spain.     The  Parisian  is  in   10  Vols.,  1645,  ^^^   was 
'muJ^  ^  published  at    Paris.      The    London    Polyglot    in    6 

(  Vols.,  folio,  in  1657.  -   z**^  j 


'1  ^^ 

^*<c^  /^.t  -  ^^.^^  ^:*:,^  .M^  ^^^^ 


♦s^.'V^    , 


^     '■-"'■<■■-     ^^^^i^^w^  V1.,v«-M^^  0?K*.      i*^i~-»U(. 


^    -^^^-vv  O^  dLlj  ^    '^^   ^^-^ 


(2     ..  ,.',.  .  .  ./  ^  .       ^ 


(D-  >h\  % 


/  .  J:  tTx^^u^ 


